Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 428
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Rohit Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (Asopa, J.)
HON'BLE PREM KHANKER ASOPA, J.
Rohit Sharma
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13882 of 2011, decided on 03.04.2012
M.M. Mehrishi, for Petitioner;
Sunita Satyarthi, Addl. G.C., for State
Headnote:Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, Rule 67; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Sec. 2(i) — Entitlement to receive family pension — Petitioner is totally blind and illiterate son of a Govt. servant — Father, who was getting pension after retirement, died on 12.2.2011 — His mother also died prior to death of his father — His father nominated petitioner as his only son for family pension — Held — The petitioner is entitled to get family pension u/S. 67 of the Pension Rules read with Sec. 2(i) of the Act of 1995 — Directed to make payment of family pension alongwith arrears within one month, failing which interest @ 9% p.a. will be payable. (Paras 9, 10)
jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼isa'ku½ fu;e] 1996] fu;e 67( fu'kDr%tu ¼leku volj vf/kdkjksa dk laj{k.k rFkk iw.kZ Hkkxhnkjh½ vf/kfu;e] 1995] /kkjk 2¼i½ &ikfjokfjd isa'ku ikus dh ik=rk & izkFkhZ ,d ljdkjh lsod dk iw.kZ:is.k vU/kk rFkk vf'kf{kr O;fDr gS &mlds firk] tks lsokfuo`fr ds ckn isa'ku ik jgs Fks] dk 12-2-2011 dks fu/ku gks x;k & mldh ekrk dk Hkh mlds firk ls iwoZ fu/ku gks pqdk gS & mlds firk us izkFkhZ dks ,d ek= iq= ds :i esa ikfjokfjd isa'ku gsrq ukekafdr fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izkFkhZ isa'ku fu;eksa ds fu;e 67 lifBr 1995 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼i½ ds rgr ikfjokfjd isa'ku ikus dk gdnkj gS & cdk;k jkf'k ds lkFk ikfjokfjd isa'ku dk ,d ekg ds Hkhrj Hkqxrku djus ds funsZ'k fn;k] foQy jgus ij 9% okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ns; gksxkA ¼in la[;k 9] 10½
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
2. By this writ petition, petitioner has sought declaration that he being totally blind and illiterate is entitled to receive family pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1996'). He has sought further direction to the respondents to release family pension to the petitioner within specified period alongwith interest at the rate of 9%.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner's father retired on 31.3.1991 from the post of Office Superintendent, District Education Office, Bharatpur and was getting pension vide PPO No. 46046 till he died on 12.2.2011. Petitioner's mother died earlier on 11.9.2006 and petitioner's father had nominated the petitioner, his only son, totally blind since birth for family pension. Medical Board has also certified the petitioner as 100% blind since birth vide (Annexure-1) dated 23.10.2010. It is also stated in the writ petition that petitioner is facing miseries and starvation without any assistance being unable to earn himself.
4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner, being one of the nominee and a disabled person, is entitled for family pension. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in proviso to Rule 67 of the Rules of 1996, there is a Specific & General Mention of Disability therefore, General Mention of Disability in the definition of the "disability" given in Section 2 (i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter referred to as `the Act of 1995') will apply in the instant case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the petitioner is not covered by any of the categories prescribed under proviso to Rule 67 of the Rules of 1996 for grant of family pension.
6. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the parties.
7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995. The same is as under:
"2(i) "disability" means-
(i) blindness;
(ii) low vision;
(iii) leprosy- cured;
(iv) hearing impairment;
(v) locomotor disability;
(vi) Mental retardation;
(vii) mental illness;"
8. Rule 67 of the Rules of 1996, upon which learned counsel for the petitioner has relied, is also reproduced as under:
"67. Condition of grant
The family pension shall be admissible to-
(a) a widow/widower, up to the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier;
[(b) unmarried son till he attains the age of twenty five years or on earning a monthly income exceeding Rs. 2550/-;
(c) daughter including widowed/divorced daughter till she attains the age of 25 years or on earning a monthly income exceeding Rs. 2550/- per month or upto the date of her marriage/re-marriage, whichever is earlier;
(d) parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child and the income of parent is not more than Rs. 2550/-.]
Provided that if the son or daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty five years, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life, subject to the following conditions, namely,-
(i) If there are more than one such children suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in the order of their birth and the younger of them will get the family pension only after the elder next above him/her ceases to be eligible;
(ii) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning livel
