4 min readRaipurFeb 14, 2026 08:05 AM IST
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that denying pension to the 68-year-old mother of a Chhattisgarh Armed Forces (CAF) man who died in an encounter with Maoists was “highly unjust”. The court said she is entitled to the pension and directed the government to decide on the case within six weeks.
After the death of 21-year-old Ignatius Lakra, a police constable with the 10th Battalion of CAF in the 2012 encounter, his parents, Lobin and Filisita Lakra, started getting the family pension. However, after Lobin died in August 2020, the family pension, which came from the Treasury office in Jashpur district, stopped coming.
In 2021, Filisita moved the High Court after efforts to get the pension by contacting officials failed.
In October 2021, the High Court asked respondents to resolve the issue within 60 days. One of the respondents, the Commandant of the 10th Battalion of CAF, responded saying, “After the death of the family pensioner, there is no direction under the Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam (Rules) 1965 to provide Family Pension to his/her successor.”
The Director of the Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Department of Finance, declared that the petitioner was not eligible to receive family pension.
The petitioner’s counsel, Ashish Beck, submitted before the High Court that the Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam 1965 is discriminatory, arguing that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules of 1963 says that the pension sanctioned to the father of a deceased employee will, after his death, be payable to the mother.
Beck argued, “The notification dated 10.09.1965, as issued by the Finance Department of the erstwhile Government of Madhya Pradesh state that the Rules of 1965, are being made in compliance of or following the Rules of 1963. So, any deviation from the Rules of 1965 which is unreasonable and discriminatory is illegal and unconstitutional.”
Story continues below this ad
Praying for dismissal of the petition, Deputy Advocate General Prasun Kumar said, “The Pension Rules of 1963 is a general rule which deals with payment of family pension, whereas the Pension Rules of 1965 came into existence later on as special rules to deal with payment of family pension to special category of members of police force [personnel]. It is settled principle that the subsequent special rule always prevail over the earlier general rule, otherwise what would be the intention of the legislature to frame a special rule knowing very well about the existence of the general rule governing the same field.”
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ruled in favour of the petitioner. The court observed, “In the Rules of 1963, there was an amendment in the year 1970 by which a note, being Note 6, was added which states that subject to the provisions of Note 5, pension sanctioned to father under these rules will, after his death, be payable to mother. Had similar amendment being made to the Rules of 1963, the petitioner would have been entitled to get the pension after the death of her husband.”
It further noted, “The Rules of 1965 were made in compliance with the Rules of 1963 as is evident from the Notification dated 10.09.1965, and as such, it can safely be held that the State Government ought to make similar amendments as has been done in the Rules of 1963.”
The court said, “Denial of pension to the mother of the deceased employee is highly unjust, especially when in the present case, the son of the petitioner laid his life in a Naxal attack.”
Story continues below this ad
“…the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of pension and the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the observations made in this petition, within a period of six weeks from today,” the order said.
