Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of directions to pay BSF family pension arrears. Respondents undertook to complete payment within eight weeks; undertaking recorded and petition disposed of.
Respondents' undertaking to pay family pension arrears with interest within eight weeks taken on record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~122
versus
GOVIND MOHAN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC, Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Mr. Abhay Verma, Advs. and Mr. Abhishek, Inspector, BSF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
2. In effect, the petitioner, wife of late Ishwari Dutt who was initially employed in Army and thereafter in Border Security Force (BSF) is claiming family pension pursuant to the death of her husband. We have been informed now that she is getting pension from the Army. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grievance is primarily against the BSF who has stopped giving the family pension w.e.f. 18.12.2009 for the service put in by the deceased employee in BSF.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 892/2026 By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:2 0.05.2026 14:47:12
Page 1 of 3
3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has instructions to state that the petitioner is entitled to family pension from BSF w.e.f. 24.09.2012. He also states that the respondent/BSF is processing the payment of the family pension to the petitioner and the same shall be paid to her.
4. At this stage, Mr. Bhargava states that the ground on which the respondent BSF has limited the family pension w.e.f. 24.09.2012 is that the concerned Sub Rules 13A and 13B of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [‘CCS Pension Rules’] which do not permit two pensions were deleted vide notification issued on 27.12.2012 and as per the clarification issued by the Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare [‘DOP&PW’] dated 23.05.2022, the benefit of the family pension shall be granted w.e.f. 24.09.2012. Mr. Bhargava states that the respondents having deleted the Sub Rules 13A and 13B, the benefit of family pension must relate back to 18.12.2009.
5. We have seen the prayer as made by the petitioner in this writ petition.
6. We find that there is no challenge to the OM dated 23.05.2022 limiting the family pension to 24.09.2012. So, by taking the submission made by the counsel for the respondents, that the respondents shall process the payment of the arrears of family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.09.2012, and directing the same be paid within 12 weeks from today with interest of 6% p.a., which interest shall be limited to the arrears for the period of three years, prior to the filing of the writ petition, dispose of this petition.
7. In so far as the plea of Mr. Bhargava that the O.M. dated 23.05.2022 cannot limit the family pension to 24.09.2012 is concerned, suffice to state liberty shall be with the petitioner to challenge the said O.M. in accordance with law, if so advised. ”
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 892/2026
Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:2 0.05.2026 14:47:12
Page 2 of 3
necessary compliance and release of the requisite amount to the petitioner shall be done latest within a period of eight weeks from today. The said undertaking is taken on record.
SACHIN DATTA, J
MAY 18, 2026/ cl
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 892/2026
Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:2 0.05.2026 14:47:12
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether respondents complied with the direction dated 21.01.2026 to pay arrears of family pension to the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Govinde Devi
Govind Mohan
Sachin Datta
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
