The classification in Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, excluding adult brothers from leave encashment benefits, is constitutional and rationally grounded in dependency principles.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present D.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking enforcement of his legal and fundamental rights, alleging non-release of the leave encashment benefits payable on account of the death of his brother, late Shri Sita Ram Bairwa, who was serving as a Helper in the respondent- department. The challenge is also laid to the validity of Rule 39-C (viii) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, on the ground that the same is highly arbitrary, irrational and hence violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:

“a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Rule 39C Explanation (viii) may be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires to the extent it denies/deprives the elder surviving brother from receiving leave encashment benefits upon attainment of 18 years of age;

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may be directed to immediately release the leave encashment amount (Rs. 3,35,350/-) along with interest for delayed payment from the date when the same became due till its actual payment along with cost;

c) any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which the Petitioner may be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.”

3. Om Prakash Bairwa (hereinafter refererred as to ‘the petitioner’) is the elder brother of the deceased employee, Sita Ram Bairwa, who died in harness while serving in the Department of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Upon the death of the employee, the petitioner sought payment of leave encashment benefits amounting to Rs. 3,35,350/-, claiming himself to be a dependent family member of the deceased. The respondents rejected the claim vide communication dated 03.05.2019 on the ground that the petitioner, being above the age of 18 years, was not eligible to receive the leave encashment benefits under Rule 39-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1972”).

Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging both the order dated 03.05.2019 and the constitutional validity of Rule 39-C (viii) of the Rules, 1972.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the communication dated 03.05.2019 is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is contended that the petitioner, being the brother of the deceased employee, was entitled to receive the monetary benefits and the withholding of the same by the respondent-department is unfair and unjust. It is further contended that the petitioner has been issued a Succession Certificate by the Competent Court, and in view of the same, he cannot be denied the payment of these benefits. The exclusion of a brother above 18 years of age under Rule 39-C from the category of eligible dependents is unreasonable and arbitrary. While laying challenge to the validity of Rule 39-C, it is alleged that the same is discriminatory and lacking any reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved and hence deserves to be declared unconstitutional.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the communication dated 03.05.2019 was passed strictly in accordance with 39-C of the Rules, 1972. The rule clearly defines the eligible category of persons entitled to receive leave encashment, and the petitioner, being an adult brother of the deceased employee, does not fall within the said definition.

6. Learned counsel further contended that Rule 39-C was framed