Allowed

Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2010CWP/16454/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a public interest litigation permitting dependent parents of a deceased employee to receive family pension. This decision applies when the employee leaves a widowed widow who has remarried, making her ineligible.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed. Petitioner was directed to be paid admissible family pension with effect from the date the widow's pension was stopped, including arrears within four months.

Bimla Devi Vs State of Haryana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 16454 of 2007 Date of Decision: 2.2.2010.

Bimla Devi

--Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others --Respondents

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶8

¶9

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶10

Ajay Kumar son of the petitioner was working as constable with the Haryana Police. He was married to one Sunita Devi daughter of Sh. Jai Narain on 4.11.2003. Unfortunately, after 25 days of the marriage, Ajay Kumar died on 29.11.2003. After his death family pension of Rs. 1275/- was sanctioned in favour of Sunita Devi vide order dated 22.3.2004 (Annexure P-1) w.e.f. 30.11.2003. Sunita Devi re-married on 17.11.2005 and thus became dis-entitled to family pension. She informed to the Treasury Officer regarding the factum of her re-marriage. The petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased employee represented to respondent no.3 for grant of family pension vide her representation (Annexure P-3). The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the office of Accountant General, Haryana vide order Annexure P-4 on the ground that as per general rules the part of family pension cannot be transferred in the name of the mother. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶11

The payment of pension is governed and regulated by the statutory rules namely Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II as applicable to

¶12

CWP. No. 16454 of 2007

¶13

-2-

¶14

the State of Haryana. These rules were amended vide notification dated 26.8.2004. Under Rule 2 (ii) the definition of the family is given. Sub Rule (iii) of Rule 2 also specifies the members, who are eligible to pension. The relevant extract from the aforesaid rule reads as under:-

¶15

“ (ii) 'Family' for the purposes of this scheme includes the

¶16

following relatives of the officer:-

¶17

(a) wife in the case of a male officer.

¶18

(b) husband in the case of a female officer.

¶19

¶20

(d) unmarried minor daughters.

¶21

(e) widowed/legally divorced daughters and

¶22

(f) the parents of an unmarried officer.

¶23

Note 1:Clause (c) and (d) include children adopted legally before retirement.

¶24

Note 2:A judicial separated wife/husband does not loose her/his legal status of wife/husband of the Govt. employee and is thus eligible for the benefit of the family pension scheme 1964.

¶25

(iii) The pension is admissible:-

¶26

(a) in the case of widow/widower up to the date of death or

¶27

remarriage which ever is earlier.

¶28

(b) in the case of son/unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter until he/she attains the age of 25 years and

¶29

¶30

Govt. employee when he/she was alive up to the date of death provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child.

¶31

Provided that an unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter will become ineligible for pension from the

¶32

CWP. No. 16454 of 2007

¶33

-3-

¶34

date of her marriage/remarriage.

¶35

Provided further that the son/unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter shall become ineligible for pension if he or she starts earning livelihood.”

¶36

The aforesaid rules were substituted by 2009 rules notified vide notification dated 17.4.2009. Under these rules also the definition of family for entitlement of family pension is given and reads as under:-

¶37

“ Definition of family for entitlement of family pension.

¶38

14 (i) for the purposes of grant of family pension, the term 'family' shall be categorised as under:-

¶39

Category I

¶40

(a) widow or widower up to re-marriage or as the case may be, death if the recipient remains un-married till death.

¶41

(b) son/daughter (including widowed daughter) up to the date of his/her marriage/re-marriage or till the date he/she starts earning or till the date he/she attains an age of 25 years, whichever is the earliest.

¶42

Category II

¶43

(c) unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter, not covered under Category I above, till the date of marriage/re-marriage or till the date she starts earning or till the date of death, whichever is earliest;

¶44

(d) parents who were wholly dependent on the Govt. servant when he/she was alive provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child.”

¶45

In terms of 2004 rules as also 2009 rules the dependent parents of the Govt. servant are entitled to the family pension. Admittedly, the petitioner was dependent upon the deceased son which fact is not disputed

¶46

-4-

¶47

CWP. No. 16454 of 2007

¶48

in the reply.

¶49

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay admissible family pension to the petitioner with effect from the date family pension earlier awarded to the widow of the deceased Govt. servant was stopped.

¶50

Let the entire arrears be paid within a period of four months.

¶51

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶52

2.2.2010. lucky

Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Dayal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Bachan Mala Vs State of Haryana

Jitender Vs State of Haryana etc.

Manmohan Singh, S.I, Food and Supplies Ambala Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohan Mala Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

G.S. Sethi and Co. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.