The recipient of a pension by one parent does not automatically disqualify the other parent from claiming Extraordinary Family Pension.

The petitioner, the mother of a deceased Border Security Force (BSF) Constable, sought an extraordinary family pension following her son’s death in a road accident while he was traveling to report for duty.

An Additional Court of Inquiry determined that the death was attributable to "bona fide Government service" under the relevant pension rules.

While the respondents paid standard death-cum-retiral benefits, they rejected the claim for an extraordinary family pension on the grounds that the petitioner’s husband was already receiving a monthly pension, rendering her ineligible.

The petitioner argued she lives separately from her husband and cited precedents where pensions were granted to parents of deceased bachelors regardless of the father's income.

1. Whether the receipt of a pension by the petitioner’s husband constitutes a valid ground to deny the petitioner an extraordinary family pension for the death of her son in the line of duty.

2. Whether the court should direct the authorities to reconsider the claim in light of specific judicial precedents and the Court of Inquiry’s findings.

Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, specifically Paragraph 4(B)(iv) regarding deaths attributable to government service and Rule 3-A(1)(a/b) concerning the nexus between service and the casualty.

The principle established by the Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Rukmani Devi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., which held that a mother’s claim for a son's pension cannot be arbitrarily refused simply because the father is a pensioner.

The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the nature of the death, as the BSF's own inquiry confirmed the fatality occurred during bona fide service.

The court examined the internal legal opinion from the BSF Hazaribagh unit, which favored the petitioner’s eligibility by citing case law that prevents the denial of pension based on a spouse's independent income.

The court observed that the petitioner provided evidence of separate living arrangements to counter the respondents' dependency argument.

Rather than deciding the final eligibility itself, the court found that the authorities failed to properly weigh these legal opinions and factual nuances against the restrictive interpretation of the rules.

The respondent must take into account the Court of Inquiry findings, the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, and the relevant judgment in Smt. Rukmani Devi and a reasoned and speaking order be passed within eight weeks.