The parents of a deceased government servant are not entitled to family pension under the Family Pension Scheme of 1964 because the scheme excludes parents from the definition of "family."

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal which is being disposed of by this order.

( 3 ) THE short question is whether the deceased respondent Kharak Singh and his surviving widow who is now the sole respondent representing his estate were entitled to get family pension on the demise of their unmarried son Daljit Singh who died in harness on 5-11 -1985 when he was in government service of the Appellant State. |

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that there was a family pension scheme promulgated by the appellant State being Pension Rules 1951 which included the parents of the deceased government servant amongs the beneficiaries under the definition of "family". But the said Scheme underwen a metamorphosis in 1964 and as per the family Pension Scheme of 1964 the parents of the deceased government servant were excluded from the definition of "family". As the Respondents son Dalji singh died in 1985, as stated above, was the 1964 Pension Scheme which applied. In view of this Scheme, there fore, neither the deceased government servants father Kharak Singh nor his with could legally claim family pension on account of the death of Daljit Singh. There fore, the Appellant State rejected the claim.

( 5 ) A Writ Petition was moved in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the original respondents. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that pension was not a bounty and the Scheme which did not provide for granting family pension to the parents was arbitrary in nature. The result was that a writ of mandamus was issued directing the Appellant State and its officers to grant family pension to the Writ Petitioners at the rate admissible under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 from the date of death of Daljit Singh as if father and mother stood included in the definition of "family" under the Family Pension Scheme of 1964. It is this order which was carried by the Appellant State in appeal by way of letters patent appeal. But the Appellant State failed to convince the Division Bench of the High Court about their case. The result was that the letters patent appeal was dismissed and that is how the Appellant State and its officers are before us in these proceedings.

( 6 ) ON a mere look at the relevant Family Pension Scheme of 1964 which applied at the relevant time when Daljit Singh died it became obvious that the parents, that is, father and mother of the deceased government servant were not entitled to get family pension under that Scheme. Maybe under some other scheme like the Wound Pension Scheme or the Gratuity rules the parents may have been entitled to get the benefit of pension or gratuity, but so far as the Family Pension scheme, 1964 is concerned they had no such right to claim any family pension.

( 7 ) IT is true that strong reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the Respondent before the learned Single Judge and also before the Division Bench of the high Court on two judgments of this court. In Poonamal v. Union of India [ (1985) 3 SCC 345] a Bench of this Court noted that when a liberalised pension scheme was introduced in 1964 the widow and minor children of those government servants who died prior to 1964 were not made eligible for the benefit of the 1964 Pension Scheme. The said deprivation of the benefit of the 1964 Pension scheme was held by this Court to be arbitrary and illegal. It must be kept in view that the said decision proceeded on its own facts, namely, that the Family pension Scheme was already available to the heirs of the government servant concerned when the servant had died in harness. When that very scheme under which the beneficiaries were covered was liberalised if the beneficiary had survived introduction of the said liberalised scheme it was held that the benefit thereof was admissible to such surviving otherwise eligible beneficiaries. On the facts of the present case the said judgment cannot be of any avail for the