HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 10.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.09.2025 Case No.:- WP(C) No. 247/2023 & WP(C) No. 2248/2023 CCP(S) Nos. 203/2023 & 341/2022 Smt. Vaishnu Devi …..Petitioners. Through: Ms. Radha Sharma, Advocate. Vs Union of India and ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC for R-1 to 5 in WP(C) No. 247/2023. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Advocate for R-6 in both the petitions. Mr. Vipul Kishore Sharma, CGSC for R-1 in WP(C) No. 2248/2023 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. By this common order, aforesaid two writ petitions filed by the petitioner-Smt. Vaishnu Devi are proposed to be disposed of. Vide writ petition-WP(C) No. 247/2023, challenge has been thrown to communication No. CAPO/ NPS/N23903190880/2022-23/344 dated 02.01.2023 addressed by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 3 whereby family pension in respect of the petitioner has been suspended and recovery for an amount of Rs. 8,66,434/- against her has been directed. Vide writ petition-WP(C) No. 2248/2023, 2 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 challenge has been thrown by the petitioner to Pension Order bearing No. P3-73/2010 CRPF dated 05.06.2023 issued by respondent No. 2-Deputy Inspector General (Adm.) CRPF, Bhuvneshwar, Orissa whereby pension has been directed to be sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 6. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the aforesaid two writ petitions are that Sepoy Tilak Raj Sharma of 39th Battalion, CRPF, who happened to be the son of the petitioner and husband of respondent No. 6, attained martyrdom on 29.06.2010 while fighting naxalites in the State of Chhattisgarh. A dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 with regard to the service/pensionary and other benefits, which were sanctioned on account of martyrdom of Sepoy Tilak Raj Sharma. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing OWP No. 986/2010 seeking a direction upon the official respondents that she should be paid one half of the amount of service and other benefits, which have been paid to respondent No. 6, the wife of Sepoy Tilak Raj Sharma on the ground that the petitioner happens to be the Class-I legal heir of the deceased- Sepoy Tilak Raj Sharma in terms of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 3. It was claimed by the petitioner that respondent No. 6 has been entered as nominee of deceased-Sepoy Tilak Raj Sharma in the service records, therefore, all the amounts sanctioned 3 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 by the Government and the official respondents are being credited to the account of the said respondent. It was contended that a nominee is only entitled to receive the amount but ultimately the said amount is to be disbursed amongst the legal heirs in accordance with the applicable laws of Succession. Thus, the petitioner claimed half share of the family pension as well as other sums sanctioned/received on account of death of Sepoy Tilak Raj Sharma. It was also contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 6 has re-married, therefore, she is not entitled to receive pension and, as such, said pension is required to be sanctioned in her favour. 4. Initially an interim order came to be passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition (OWP No. 986/2010) on 07.05.2016. The relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under: “If that be so, the right of the petitioner being mother of the deceased to receive the pension after 23.11.2015 cannot be denied. Respondents are therefore directed to process the case of the petitioner being mother of the deceased for payment of pension along with arrears within a period of four weeks from today positively. In regard to the entitlement of mother to receive ex-gratia amount as to DCRG and leave encashment being dependent upon the deceased, it was submitted by the counsel for the parties, they would assist the Court on the next date of hearing.” 4 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim direction passed by this Court, pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide PPO No. N23903-19-088-0 on 22.04.2019 w.e.f., 24.11.2015. 6. It seems that respondent No. 6 herein filed an application before the Court, claiming therein that even after re-marriage she is entitled to receive pension because she has been divorced by her second husband. The writ petition (OWP No. 986/2010) was ultimately decided by this Court in terms of judgment dated 20.09.2021. The Court while deciding the said writ petition framed following questions for determination: (i) Who is entitled to receive family pension under CCS(Pension) Rules and if it is wife of the deceased government employee, whether she will become disentitled to continuation of family pension on remarriage; (ii) Whether in view of the first Proviso appended to Rule 54(6)(i) of CCS(Pension) Rules, a widow even after re-marriage is entitled to receive pension provided her independent income from all sources is less than amount of minimum payable family pension; (iii) Whether the nominee appointed by the deceased employee to receive his terminal benefits is entitled to appropriate the whole money received to the exclusion of other legal heirs who may be entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased as per the personnel law; (iv) Whether the payments made by the employer, the Governments, Central or State, or other agencies including NGOs, by way of exgratia to the next-of-kin of the deceased employee on account of his having sacrificed his life in the line of duty constitute estate of the deceased to be devolved on his legal heirs as per the law of succession governing the 5 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 parties or is a payment made to provide immediate relief to such deceased employee’s dependents to tide over the crisis befallen them due to untimely snatching of their bread winner.” 7. While answering question Nos. (i) and (ii), the Court held that the rules unequivocally provide for payment of family pension in favour of widow of the deceased employee and not the mother, who may be dependent upon the earnings of her son. It was further observed that widow is ordinarily entitled to family pension till her death or remarriage, whichever is earlier and in view of proviso appended to Rule 54(6)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, a widow may be paid the family pension even after remarriage provided her independent income from all sources is less than the amount of minimum prescribed family pension. 8. While answering question No. (iii), the Court held that the official respondents are obliged to deliver all the terminal benefits of the deceased employee to respondent No. 6 who, as per their record, is nominee of the deceased employee. It was further held that dispute with regard to apportionment of the benefits is to be decided by the civil court but the Court observed that because it is eleven years old matter, it would not be appropriate to relegate the parties to civil court. 9. In answer to question No. (iv), the Court observed that the money received and receivable on account of martyrdom of 6 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 Sepoy Tilak Raj can be broadly classified in the following categories: (i) Family pension @ Rs.9540 per month with effect from 30th June, 2010; (ii) Exgratia payments from Central and State Governments =Rs.18.00 lakhs (iii) Central Welfare Fund of CRPF =Rs.10.50 lakhs (iv) GPAIS from Chhattisgarh Govt.=Rs.10.00 lakhs (v) Other terminal benefits =Rs.1,54,548 (vi) Leave encashment=Rs.37,993 10. It was further observed that it is for the official respondents to conduct requisite verification to find out as to whether the income of respondent No. 6, who is married third time, from all sources is not less than the amount of the prescribed minimum family pension and the same would ultimately govern the continuation or otherwise of family pension in favour of respondent No. 6. 11. After making the aforesaid observations, the Court finally decided the writ petition by extending the following directions: I) The amounts received or receivable on account of ex gratia from Central Government, ex gratia from Chhattisgarh Government, Welfare Fund of CRPF and GPAIS from Chhattisgarh Government, shall be divided in three equal shares to be paid one each to the petitioner, respondent No.7 and respondent No.8; 7 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 II) Other terminal benefits like DCRG, leave encashment etc. shall be paid as per applicable rules and a decision in this regard shall be taken by the DG, CRPF; III) Family pension shall be paid and is payable to the respondent No.7 till her death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier, and continuation of the family pension even after re-marriage shall depend upon the determination by the official respondents as to whether independent income of the respondent No.7 from all sources is less than the minimum prescribed family pension (Refer Rule 54 (6) (i) Proviso Ist). A decision in this regard shall be taken by the competent authority after holding proper enquiry/verification. And in case the respondent No.7 is not held entitled to family pension, family pension shall be sanctioned in favour of dependent parents as the deceased has died issueless (Refer Rule 54). IV) That the amounts, if any, received by respondent No.7 or the petitioner, shall be adjusted while disbursing the balance amount. V) It is further provided that the amounts lying in the accounts of respondent No.7 with respondent Nos. 9 and 10, which have not been withdrawn so far, shall be distributed on the authority/ certificate in this regard issued by the competent authority of the official respondents after working out the share of the petitioner, respondent No. 7 and 8 and making necessary adjustments on account of money already received by any of them.” 12. It seems that the official respondents, upon conducting the enquiry in terms of directions issued by this Court on 20.09.2021, found respondent No. 6 herein entitled to receive 8 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 pension as her annual income was found to be Rs. 96,000/-, which is less than the amount of prescribed minimum family pension. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 02.01.2023 came to be issued by respondent No. 4 whereby the pension order in favour of the petitioner has been suspended and recovery of amount of pension received by her w.e.f., 24.11.2015 to 30.11.2022 has been permitted to be effected. Thereafter, another order came to be issued by respondent No. 2 on 05.06.2023 thereby recommending sanction of family pension in favour of respondent No. 6. 13. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders by way of aforesaid two separate writ petitions on the grounds that the said orders have not been issued after holding a proper enquiry as was directed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 20.09.2021 passed in OWP No. 986/2010. It has been further contended that pursuant to martyrdom of Sepoy Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma, respondent No. 6 was appointed as a Head Constable on compassionate grounds on 16.06.2011 but because of her mis-conduct, she was removed from service on 14.11.2017 after holding an enquiry against her. It has also been contended that respondent No. 6 has received a sum of Rs. 12,25,000/- as alimony from her second marriage at the time of her divorce and now she is living with her third 9 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 husband and has enough means to maintain herself whereas, the petitioner does not have any means of sustenance. It has been further contended that no enquiry has been conducted by the Tehsildar concerned while ascertaining the income of respondent No. 6 and the official respondents have relied upon the income certificate sent by respondent No. 6 to them through whatsapp without ascertaining its authenticity. It has been further contended that it is not open to the official respondents to recover the pension received by the petitioner pursuant to the interim directions passed by this Court as the same would be inequitable and would work very harshly against the petitioner, who has no source of income. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 15. So far as the issue as to who amongst the petitioner and respondent No. 6 is entitled to receive family pension on account of death of Sepoy Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma is concerned, the same has already been decided by this Court in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, therefore, it is not open to this Court to have a re-look to this aspect of the matter. In the judgment dated 20.09.2021 passed in OWP No. 986/2010, it has been clearly held that continuation of the family pension even after re-marriage of respondent No. 6 would depend upon the determination by the official respondents as to whether the 10 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 independent income of respondent No. 6 from all sources is less than the minimum prescribed family pension. In this regard, the Court has placed reliance upon 54(6)(i) proviso 1st of CCS (Pension) Rules. A direction was issued to the competent authority to hold proper enquiry verification in this regard. It was further directed that in case respondent No. 6 is held not entitled to family pension, the same shall be sanctioned in favour of the dependent parents of the deceased, who has died issueless. Reference to Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules has been made by the Court in this regard. 16. The question that arises for determination is as to whether the official respondents have conducted any enquiry with regard to the income of respondent No. 6 and if so, whether the same is satisfactory. 17. If we have a look at the reply filed by the official respondents, it has been averred that pursuant to the final judgment passed by this Court in OWP No. 986/2010, verification has been conducted with regard to the income of respondent No. 6. According to the official respondents, vide communication dated 27.01.2023, Superintendent of Police, City North, Jammu has intimated that respondent No. 6 has solemnized second marriage with one Sudesh Kumar from whom she got divorced and solemnized third marriage with Ashish Kumar. It was also intimated that the house located at the address 11 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 furnished by respondent No. 6 does not belong to her but it belongs to her uncle Sh. Yash Pal Sharma and the said address has been furnished by her only for the purpose of correspondence. It was also reported that respondent No. 6 has no source of income and even her husband is unemployed. It has been further submitted that matter was got verified through the concerned Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar) regarding the source of income of respondent No. 6 and in this regard, Tehsildar, Jammu North has intimated vide his communication dated 07.02.2023 that respondent No. 6 has no source of income. It has also been submitted that respondent No. 6 furnished income certificate issued by Tehsildar Bhalwal through whatsapp in which it has been mentioned that her annual income is Rs. 96,000/-. In the impugned order dated 05.06.2023, it is noted that income certificate furnished by respondent No. 6 was verified by ascertaining its authenticity from QR Code appearing on the said certificate. 18. From the above stand taken by the official respondents, it is clear that they have conducted an enquiry with regard to the income of respondent No. 6. In this regard, the official respondents have received reports from the concerned Tehsildar as well as from the concerned Superintendent of Police, both of whom have, upon verification, certified that 12 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 respondent No. 6 does not have any source of income. The official respondents have also relied upon the income certificate issued by the concerned Tehsildar in favour of respondent No. 6, which was sent to them by her through whatsapp. The authenticity of this certificate has been verified by the respondents on the basis of its QR code. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the official respondents have relied upon the certificate sent through whatsapp, without verifying its authenticity, is not tenable. 19. As already stated, the official respondents have not only got the matter verified through police and revenue agency but they have also got the authenticity of income certificate produced by respondent No. 6 through QR Code. Thus, it cannot be stated that enquiry, in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, has not been conducted by the official respondents before arriving at the conclusion that the income of respondent No. 6 is less than the minimum prescribed family pension. Once it was found by the official respondents that the income of respondent No. 6 was less than the minimum prescribed family pension, there was no option left with them but to sanction family pension in her favour in terms of Rule 54(6)(i) 1st proviso. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 issued by 13 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 respondent No. 2 whereby family pension has been sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 6. 20. That takes us to the validity of impugned communication dated 02.01.2023 whereby Pension Payment Order of the petitioner has been suspended and recovery of Rs. 8,66,434/-, constituting the pension received by her from 24.11.2015 to 30.11.2022 has been directed. So far as, stoppage of pension of the petitioner is concerned, no fault can be found in the said action of the official respondents because once they found respondent No. 6 eligible to family pension after holding an enquiry with regard to her income, the payment of pension in favour of the petitioner could not have been continued. 21. So far as, the recovery of the pension drawn by the petitioner is concerned, in this regard it is to be noted that respondent No. 6 had served as a Head Constable with the official respondents w.e.f 16.06.2011 to 14.11.2017. For this period, respondent No. 6 is, otherwise, not entitled to draw any pension and in her absence, it is the petitioner, being the mother of Sepoy Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma, who has died issueless, who is entitled to receive pension in view of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. So far as, receipt of pension by the petitioner beyond 14.11.2017 is concerned, the same has been made to her pursuant to interim directions passed by this Court on 07.05.2016. 14 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 22. Ordinarily, once respondent No. 6 has been held entitled to family pension, the amount released in favour of the petitioner on account of the family pension with effect from the date the family pension has been sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 6, is required to be recovered but having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, who admittedly has no source of income, it will be highly inequitable to effect recovery of pension drawn by her pursuant to interim directions passed by this Court. 23. The Supreme Court has time and again made it clear that pension and service benefits drawn by a person, who has already retired from service, should not be normally recovered unless there is some misrepresentation or fraud perpetrated by the concerned employee. In the present case, no such allegation is leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not open to the official respondents to recover the pension that has been drawn by her pursuant to the interim directions passed by this Court. 24. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the writ petitions to the extent of laying challenge to sanction of pension in favour of respondent No. 6 and suspension of pension sanctioned in favour of the petitioner are dismissed. However, the impugned communication dated 02.01.2023 addressed by respondent 15 WP(C) Nos. 247/2023 & 2248/2023 No. 4 to respondent No. 3 to the extent, it seeks recovery of pension amount drawn by the petitioner, is quashed. CCP(S) 203/2023 25. Since the main writ petition has been finally decided by this Court by virtue of aforesaid order, the interim order out of which the present contempt proceedings arise, has merged with the final judgment passed in the writ petition. Thus, the present contempt proceedings do not survive. The same are, accordingly, closed. CCP(S) No. 341/2022 26. Since the present contempt petition arises out of judgment passed in OWP No. 986/2010 and not out of the orders passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions, therefore, the present contempt petition is directed to be delinked. The same be listed separately on 13.10.2025. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 19.09.2025 Naresh/Secy. Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: No Naresh Kumar 2025.09.19 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document