Dismissal of Family Pension Claim: Court Rules No Cause of Action in Petition.


24 December 2024 Unpaid salary/bonus/gratuity >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

In the present case, the petitioner (defendant) filed a Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the dismissal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner sought to set aside the order passed on 27.09.2021, which rejected the application to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff).

Factual Background:

The respondent, Mr. Kulbhushan Dania, initiated a suit seeking a Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the petitioner, Ms. Kumkum Dania. The suit aimed to compel the petitioner to process the family pension rights in favor of the plaintiff, in compliance with the Civil Service (Pension) Rules of 1944. Additionally, the plaintiff sought directions to the Deputy Director and Director of the Department of Education to grant the family pension based on complaints that the petitioner had concealed family members from the official service record.

 

 

The respondent and the petitioner were married in 1990 and had two children, but their relationship faced difficulties and eventually led to their separation in 2008. Despite the separation, they reconciled in 2012, though marital disputes persisted. The petitioner was employed as a Music Teacher with the Government of NCT of Delhi and superannuated in 2018, subsequently taking re-employment at the same school.

Plaintiff's Claims and Defendants' Response:

The plaintiff alleged that the petitioner intentionally did not disclose her correct marital status in her service record and failed to include the plaintiff and children in her pension records. As a result, the plaintiff was deprived of his right to family pension. He further claimed that the defendant's actions, including obstructing the pension process, were intentional.

In response, the petitioner clarified that her marital status was inadvertently left undeclared at the time of her initial employment and later corrected the error upon realizing it through the complaints made by the plaintiff. She emphasized that the suit was filed by the plaintiff to harass her and create obstacles in her pension process.

Legal Arguments and Court's Consideration:

The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, asserting that the plaintiff's suit lacked any valid cause of action. The plaintiff's claims were centered on the processing of family pension, which, as per the petitioner, was a non-issue because family pension can only be claimed upon the demise of the retired government employee. Since the petitioner was still alive, the suit lacked any actionable cause of action.

The court noted that family pension is a benefit available to the family of a deceased government servant, and the right to claim it arises only after the pensioner's death. The plaintiff's claims were based on an event that had not occurred, and there was no legal basis for him to demand processing of family pension while the petitioner was still alive. The court also pointed out that pension records do not require the declaration of family members in the service book, and the respondent could still apply for family pension once the cause of action arose.

Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the respondent's actions, including repeated complaints, had caused difficulties for the petitioner in securing her pension. However, the suit, as filed, was deemed to be without merit and intended to harass the petitioner.

Conclusion:

The court found that the suit filed by the respondent lacked any cause of action and, therefore, allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, dismissing the suit. The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The court concluded that there was no legal ground for the plaintiff's claim, and thus the suit was rejected.

This case highlights the importance of establishing a valid cause of action in civil proceedings, especially when claims are based on speculative or contingent events that have not occurred. The ruling underscores that legal remedies such as pension claims can only be pursued when the requisite conditions, such as the death of the pensioner, are met.


Section 115., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908  

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908