Synopsis
Govt employee died in a naxalite bomb blast in 2003. His widow received an ex gratia payment and a seven-year family pension. She sought an extended pension based on a 2005 government policy. The Patna High Court ruled the policy could not be applied retrospectively. Read the article to know more.
Listen to this article in summarized format
On September 5, 1994, Mr Kumar from Kathiyar was appointed as a sub-inspector (SI) of police and his tentative retirement date was May 31, 2027. However, on September 8, 2003, he died from a naxalite bomb blast while being posted at Tilathou Police Station in Rohtas. The police after investigation (case no. 36/2003) also ruled that his death was caused by a naxalite bomb blast.
Consequently, on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Rohtas and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shahabad Range, an ex gratia payment of Rs 10 lakh was given to his wife Smt Kumari on November 21, 2003.
The SP, Rohtas also recommended that Kumari (the widow) be given a family pension for seven years (September 9, 2003 till September 8, 2010). So, she started getting a family pension which was stopped on September 8, 2010 as per the SP’s recommendation. This created a problem and as Kumari needed funds, she requested the authorities to extend the pension. She filed multiple representations, applications and ultimately went to court seeking extension of the family pension.
Her argument was based on a 2005 Bihar government policy notification which had extended special/extraordinary pension to all government employees who died in harness due to an act of violence. This notification had removed the previous seven-year cap.
Also read: Enhanced family pension: Parents of deceased govt employees must file separate life certificates to get pension at higher rate
The problem is this 2005 notification is progressive and could not be applied retrospectively.
Therefore, she ultimately lost the case in Patna High Court on April 20, 2026. The Patna High Court ruled that a beneficial executive policy of the Bihar government cannot be applied retrospectively to her case in the absence of express provision, and reiterated that courts cannot expand the scope of a scheme beyond its stated terms.
The Patna High Court said that it is necessary to examine the nature and scope of the Bihar government resolution dated November 12, 2005, an executive policy decision. The 2005 resolution extended the benefit of special/extraordinary family pension earlier confined to police personnel to all government employees dying in harness due to violent acts, and removed the upper cap of seven years by extending the benefit till the date of retirement.
Also read: Widow received DA on both regular and family pension but still challenged it in court; HC explains why claim failed
The Patna High Court, pointed out that two features of the resolution are significant. First, it expressly provides that it shall be effective from the date of its issuance. Second, Clause 7 limits its applicability to cases considered and approved by the Ex-Gratia Grant Committee in its meeting dated June 15, 2005.
The Patna High Court said: “These stipulations indicate a conscious policy choice to confer the benefit prospectively and in a restricted manner.”
The Patna High Court also said that it is a settled principle that every statute, rule, or executive instruction is presumed to be prospective unless the contrary intention appears.
Citing a related case, the Patna High Court said that in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 1, it has been held that a legislation which modifies substantive rights is presumed to be prospective unless a contrary intention is manifest…, as reported by LiveLaw.
Applying the aforesaid principles, the Patna High Court said the rights of the wife crystallized on September 8, 2003, when her husband died in harness. The benefits flowing from such an unfortunate event were governed by the then existing policy framework, under which she was granted ex gratia compensation and extraordinary family pension for seven years. However, her contentions about retrospective application of the Bihar Government’s 2005 resolution cannot be accepted.
Also read: Gratuity forfeited, pension denied, and leave encashment delayed for 9 years due to criminal proceedings leading to employee's conviction; family fought back in Delhi High Court and won 6% interest on leave encashment on this ground
The Patna High Court said that while beneficial schemes are to be interpreted liberally, such interpretation cannot override the express terms of the policy or extend its operation beyond what has been consciously provided by the state.
The Patna High Court also said that they cannot, under the guise of interpretation, expand the scope of the policy to include cases which the State, in its wisdom, chose not to cover. Any such exercise would amount to rewriting the policy, which is impermissible in law.
The Patna High Court also agreed with the finding of the Single Judge that since the appellant had already been granted ex gratia compensation and pensionary benefits under the earlier scheme, there was no occasion for her case to be considered by the Committee constituted in 2005, reported LiveLaw.
So, the high court rejected her appeal.
(Join our ETWealth WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)
