Widowed daughters are entitled to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme as eligible dependents.

The Petitioner is the widowed daughter of Late Sh. Lal Chand, a recognized freedom fighter and recipient of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension.

Following the death of her husband in 1993, the Petitioner resided with her parents and remained dependent on them.

After her father’s death in 2004, her mother received the pension until her demise in 2018.

The Petitioner sought to transfer the pension to her name as the surviving dependent, but her claim remained undecided by the Respondents.

The Respondents resisted the claim based on Clause 5.2.5 of the 2014 Guidelines, which explicitly states that widowed or divorced daughters are ineligible for the pension.

The court applied the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, specifically Para 3 defining "Eligible Dependants".

It relied on the precedent of Smt. Kohli Indira Kumari v. Union of India, which held that widowed daughters should not be denied benefits despite restrictive guidelines.

The court further adopted the reasoning of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Khazani Devi v. Union of India, which established that beneficial schemes for freedom fighters must not be fettered by rigorous interpretations that negate their laudable motives.

Finally, it applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India as interpreted in Sonali Hatua Giri v. Union of India, which declared the blanket exclusion of widowed/divorced daughters as patently discriminatory and violative of the guarantee of equality.

The Court reasoned that the Scheme is not a traditional contractual pension but a formal state recognition of sacrifice.

It observed that since "unmarried daughters" are included as eligible dependents, excluding "widowed or divorced daughters" lacks rationality and creates an arbitrary classification.

The Court emphasized that a beneficial scheme intended to ensure a life of dignity for the dependents of unsung heroes should be interpreted liberally rather than restrictively.

By citing Sonali Hatua Giri, the Court noted that excluding widowed daughters who have no independent source of income is "worse than gender bias" and violates Article 14.

Consequently, the Court found the legal position settled (res-integra), determining that marital status (widowhood) should not act as a bar if the daughter is otherwise a dependent.

The Court directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s case for the grant of dependent pension, provided she satisfies other conditions, such as having no independent source of income, within eight weeks.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.