Chhattisgarh HC terms denial of martyr’s mother’s pension ‘highly unjust’, orders relief in six weeks

RAIPUR: For nearly four years after losing her husband, 68-year-old mother from Jashpur district of Chhattisgarh kept knocking on government doors with a simple plea — the pension her family had been receiving since her 21-year-old son was martyred in a Naxal attack should not stop with her husband’s death. On Wednesday, the Chhattisgarh high court came to her rescue, observing that denying pension to the mother of a martyr is “highly unjust,” particularly when similar provisions exist for other government employees.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal directed the state authorities to process the pension claim of the petitioner Filisita Lakra, the mother of the martyr, within six weeks, bringing long-awaited relief to the elderly mother.

Filisita Lakra’s son, Ignatius Lakra, was just 21 years old when he laid down his life during an encounter with Naxals on December 11, 2002. A constable with the 10th Battalion of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Surajpur, Ignatius was unmarried at the time of his death. Following his martyrdom, his father, Lobin Lakra, was granted family pension, which he received until his passing on August 23, 2020.

After her husband’s death, Filisita approached the authorities seeking continuation of the pension. However, her application was rejected by the Treasury Officer. The authorities cited the Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam, 1965, stating that the rules did not provide for transfer of pension to a successor after the death of the primary recipient.

Her counsel, Ashish Beck, argued that the 1965 Rules were discriminatory. He pointed out that under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1963 — applicable to non-police government employees — there is a specific provision stating that if pension is sanctioned to a father, it shall be payable to the mother after his death.

The state, represented by Deputy Advocate General Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, maintained that the 1965 Rules were special provisions for police personnel and did not contain such a clause.

The HC, however, noted that the 1965 Rules were intended to follow the 1963 Rules. The bench observed that police personnel serve in high-risk environments, particularly in Naxal-affected regions, and their families should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to other civil servants.

“The State Government ought to have made similar amendments in the 1965 Rules as were done in the 1963 Rules. Denial of pension to the mother is highly unjust,” the bench observed.

Rather than striking down the 1965 Rules as unconstitutional, the court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction and held that the beneficial provisions of the 1963 Rules must be read into the 1965 Rules.

With this, the court directed the authorities to grant Filisita Lakra the extraordinary family pension along with arrears, ensuring that the legislative intent of supporting the family of a martyr is upheld.