Family pension is on a higher pedestal than pension : Entitlement to interest on delayed payment

Madras High Court Orders Interest on 37-Year Delayed Family Pension Payment. Court Directs Government to Pay 9% Interest on Delayed Family Pension to Widow of Deceased Employee

The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, has directed the Union of India and its associated entities to pay interest on the delayed disbursement of family pension to R. Dhanalakshmi, the widow of a deceased government employee. The court, presided over by Justice T. Vinod Kumar, found the 37-year delay in payment unjustifiable and ordered the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the Tribunal's order in 2002 until the actual payment in 2018.

The case, W.P. No. 26675 of 2019, highlighted the protracted struggle of the petitioner, whose husband passed away while in service in 1981. Initially denied family pension due to her husband's temporary employment status, Dhanalakshmi's pursuit of justice led her through various legal forums, including the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Madras High Court, and the Supreme Court of India.

The Tribunal had ruled in 2002 that the petitioner was entitled to family pension from the date of her husband's death. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in 2007 and later by the Supreme Court in 2018. Despite these rulings, the respondents delayed the pension payment until after the Supreme Court's dismissal of their appeal.

Justice Kumar criticized the respondents' approach as "inhumane," emphasizing that family pension is not a mere bounty but a right, especially crucial for the financial security of a deceased employee's family. The court underscored that the delay deprived the petitioner of financial support when it was most needed, thus warranting the imposition of interest as a penalty for the delay.

This judgment reinforces the legal stance that pension and family pension are valuable rights, not discretionary benefits, and any delay in their payment should be met with compensatory interest. The court has given the respondents three months to comply with the order.

Bottom Line:

Delay in payment of family pension to the petitioner - Entitlement to interest on delayed payment upheld - Payment of family pension is placed on a higher pedestal than granting of pension to a retired employee.

Statutory provision(s): Family Pension Rules, 1964 Rule 54; Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, and 21

R.Dhanalakshmi v. Union of India, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2785610