Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Pension for Martyr's Mother, Deems Denial 'Highly Unjust'
In a landmark ruling that brings long-awaited relief to an elderly mother, the Chhattisgarh High Court has intervened to ensure that the pension benefits of a martyred constable are rightfully extended to his surviving parent. The court's decision highlights a critical gap in state policies and underscores the imperative of equitable treatment for the families of those who sacrifice their lives in service.
A Four-Year Struggle for Justice
For nearly four years, 68-year-old Filisita Lakra from Jashpur district in Chhattisgarh has been navigating a bureaucratic labyrinth, seeking the continuation of a pension that her family had been receiving since her son's ultimate sacrifice. Her ordeal began after the death of her husband, Lobin Lakra, on August 23, 2020, who had been the recipient of the family pension following their son's martyrdom.
Her son, Constable Ignatius Lakra of the 10th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force in Surajpur, was just 21 years old and unmarried when he laid down his life during an encounter with Naxals on December 11, 2002. His bravery in the line of duty earned his father the pension, but upon Lobin's passing, Filisita's applications for the pension's transfer were met with rejection.
Legal Battle and Discriminatory Rules
The state authorities, through the Treasury Officer, cited the Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam, 1965, arguing that these rules did not provide for the pension to be transferred to a successor after the primary recipient's death. This stance left Filisita without the financial support she rightfully deserved.
Her legal counsel, Ashish Beck, mounted a compelling argument against this interpretation. He pointed to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1963, which govern non-police government employees. These rules explicitly state that if a pension is sanctioned to a father, it shall be payable to the mother after his death. Beck contended that the 1965 Rules were discriminatory by omission, unfairly penalizing the families of police personnel.
High Court's Decisive Intervention
On Wednesday, a division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, delivered a resounding verdict in Filisita's favor. The bench observed that denying pension to the mother of a martyr is "highly unjust," particularly when similar provisions exist for other government employees.
The court noted that police personnel, especially those serving in high-risk, Naxal-affected regions like Chhattisgarh, face unparalleled dangers. Their families, therefore, should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to those of other civil servants. "The State Government ought to have made similar amendments in the 1965 Rules as were done in the 1963 Rules," the bench emphasized, highlighting a legislative oversight.
Harmonious Construction and Directive
Rather than striking down the 1965 Rules as unconstitutional, the court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction. This legal principle ensures that conflicting statutes are interpreted in a way that gives effect to all provisions without rendering any meaningless. The bench held that the beneficial provisions of the 1963 Rules must be read into the 1965 Rules to uphold the legislative intent of supporting martyr families.
In its ruling, the High Court directed the state authorities to:
- Process Filisita Lakra's pension claim within six weeks.
- Grant her the extraordinary family pension along with all arrears.
- Ensure that the pension is paid without further delay, bringing closure to her prolonged struggle.
Broader Implications and Relief
This judgment not only provides immediate relief to Filisita Lakra but also sets a significant precedent for similar cases across the state. It reinforces the principle that the families of martyrs deserve unwavering support and protection from bureaucratic hurdles.
The state, represented by Deputy Advocate General Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, had maintained that the 1965 Rules were special provisions for police personnel and lacked a clause for pension transfer. However, the court's interpretation ensures that these rules align with the broader objective of justice and equity.
As Filisita Lakra finally sees light at the end of a long tunnel, this ruling serves as a powerful reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of the vulnerable and honoring the sacrifices of those who serve the nation.
