Dismayed at Rs80 being offered as pension to a 90-year-old widow of an army officer, the Supreme Court on Friday lambasted the defence ministry and the Union government for showing apathy towards the nonagenarian.
Dismayed at Rs80 being offered as pension to a 90-year-old widow of an army officer, the Supreme Court on Friday lambasted the defence ministry and the Union government for showing apathy towards the nonagenarian. Pushpa Vanthi’s husband Dharam Chand, a major in the Indian Army, fought three wars —Indo-Pak (1947-48 and 1965) and Sino-Indian (1962).
“What is this? You are paying her just Rs80 per month. Nowadays, you can’t even buy a kilo of pulses for Rs80,” a bench of justices Markandey Katju and TS Thakur said, while questioning the government’s counsel and reminding him of the high inflation rate in the country.
The bench asked the government why Vanthi’s appeal of seeking Rs27,000 as pension must not be accepted. According to the latest pay revision, she is entitled to that amount. Finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet, Vanthi had written several letters to the defence ministry and the government about her plight. She hasn’t received a response since 1975.
Is pension to the widow of an army officer, who won 14 medals for meritorious service, a “bounty” that depends on the “sweet will of the employer”? Vanthi’s lawyer Ramesh Haritas asked rhetorically.
Chand joined the armed services in 1937 as a junior commissioned officer, but soon graduated to become a substantive major. Turn to p15
He died at the age of 42 in 1967 after a prolonged illness.
Last April, the apex court had reprimanded the defence ministry for neglecting the armed forces personnel. While dealing with another case of denial of pension to an officer, an amputee who had to leave the services, the court had observed that the ministry treats medically unfit personnel like ‘beggars’. He suffered multiple fractures in an accident in a high-altitude area.
“If a person goes to any part of Delhi and begs, he will earn Rs1,000 every day and you are offering a pittance of Rs1,000 per month for a man who fought for the country in the high altitudes and whose arm was amputated,” justices Katju and AK Patnaik had said then. The bench urged the ministry to be ‘humane’.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}