The petitioner's son who was an employee in the Irrigation Department, died in harness on 12-9-1994. The family pension due to the petitioner was not disbursed to her so far. The petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing O.P. No. 7001 of 1998 which was disposed of by judgment dated 6-4-1998 with a direction to consider and pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioner. Accordingly Exhibit P-5 was passed rejecting the petitioner's request. But it has been stated in Exhibit P-5 that as per the existing rules the petitioner's request for family pension merits no consideration since the eligibility of the member of the family for family pension in this case had ended with the marriage of the daughter of the deceased employee. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for family pension. A petition to review the decision in Exhibit P-5 was rejected as per Exhibit P-6 and thereafter by Exhibit P. These orders are under challenge in this Original Petition.

According to the petitioner, under Rule 90(6-A) of Part-III K.S.R. the petitioner is entitled to get family pension as the parent of the deceased employee. The petitioner was solely depending on the deceased son for her maintenance and she has no other source of income or support for maintenance. This is evident from Exhibit P. certificate issued by the Tahsildar.

The contention of the petitioner seems to be on the basis of sub-rule (6) of Rule 90 of Part-III K.S.R. which defines 'family' for purposes of these rules, which reads as follows :

"(6) "Family" for purposes of those rules, means the following relatives of the employee, namely,

(a) Wife in the case of a male employee,

(b) husband in the case of a female employee,(c) sons,

(d) unmarried daughters,

(e) sons/unmarried daughters adopted legally before the retirement of the employee,

(f) father,

(g) mother,

(h) judicially separated wife, in the case of a male employee, and

(i) judicially separated husband in the case of a female employee."

Note I to the above rule says that if there are no surviving members of the family as in items (a) to (c) above, Government may sanction/family pension to the members referred to in items (C and (g) subject to the conditions prescribed in sub-rule (6-A). The petitioner comes in item (g) in sub-rule (6). Sub-rule (6-A) is as follows :

"(6-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (6) above -

(1) contributory family pension will be admissible to the parents (father/mother) of the deceased Government employee if they were solely dependent on the deceased for maintenance and they have no other source of income or support for maintenance, and even in cases where the parents have an independent source of income of less than Rs. 4800 per annum and they are partly dependent on the deceased for maintenance and there are other extenuating circumstances, subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The employee was unmarried at the time of his/her death or if married, he/she had no wife/husband or minor children at the time of death.

(ii) The parents of the deceased Government employee have no other living sons/daughters who are well-placed and the husband/wife, as the case may be of the beneficiary is also not well placed in life.

(iii) Only one family pension will be payable to a person under this rule even if there may be claim for more than one family pension on account of death of more than one son or daughter.

xxxxxx xxx"The petitioner's son has a daughter who was married just after 40 days of the death of the son. She was not receiving any family pension because she was not eligible to receive the family pension under sub-rule (6). Only unmarried daughters are entitled to receive pension until she attains the age of 25 years or married or starts earning for livelihood whichever is earlier. Thus, in this case daughter of the deceased employee did not get any family pension.

Rule (6-A) starts with the non-obstante clause. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased Government