Bhawani Singh, J — Through the present petition, the petitioner is seeking family pension from the respondents from October 15, 1990 after the death of his son Shri R, G, Sood alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In order to understand the controversy, material facts of the case may be noticed.

2. The petitioner (77) is the father of Shri R.G. Sood who died on October 15, 1990 Shri R G. Sood was member of All India Administrative Service serving the State of Himachal Pradesh and was on study leave to America (Los Angles) when he died. The petitioner was paid Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to the extent of Rs 38,900 through letter of May 13, 1991- but his case for family pension was rejected on the ground that under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the C. C, S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, father did not fall within the definition of "family". The petitioner laments and contends that Shri R.G. Sood was his only son. He has no other source of income to support himself in this old age. He was completely dependent upon his son who was unmarried leaving no other member of his family, namely, wife or any children

3. Respondent-2 called upon the petitioner to fill in necessary forms of pension and furnish requisite certificates in support of the claim The petitioner did the needful and the matter was moved by the State Government to respondent 3 but it was rejected Repeated recommendations of respondent 2 also met the same fate. Left in such a state, the petitioner has preferred the present petition and it has been submitted that Rule 54 (14) (b) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, adopted by the Central Government in application to the members of All India Service, is wholly arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution giving right of equality and right to life. There is no justifiable reason for excluding father and mother from the definition of "family" under the Rules, more particularly, in a case where the deceased happens to be unmarried leaving only father and mother solely dependent on him. It is also submitted that this Rule is unreasonable from another angle; when father and mother are entitled to the benefit of Transfer T.A. and D.A. and also LTC etc. being dependent on such Government servant, there is no justifiable reason to exclude them when the question of payment of pension to them arises.

4. Case of respondents is based on the application of Rule 22-B (14) of All India Services (D. C. R. B.) Rules, 1958 read with Rule 54 (14) of the C. C. S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 It is stated that in view of these Rules, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "family”, there-fore, family pension cannot be sanctioned 4;o him. As regards other benefits, it has been pointed that Rules governing these entitlements specifically provide giving of these benefits to the dependent parents, therefore, no parity can be drawn between these two Rules which apply in different spheres. This apart, the case of the petitioner was recommended to res-pondent-3 but it has been rejected.

5. Respondent-3 has also opposed the petitioners claim on the ground that he does not fall within the definition of "family" under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the C C S, (Pension) Rutes, 1972 which governs the present case. It has been admitted that respoadent-2 had recommended the pension case of the petitioner alongwith other relevant documents but sanction was declined since the case did not fall within Rule 54 (14) (b) ibid. It is also pointed out that respondent-2 was asked to amend the Rule to cover the parents of unmarried Government servant so that family pension could be accorded to them, but no amendment was made to the Rules,

6. It is pointed out by the petitioner that under CC S. (Conduct) Rules, 1965, a Government servant is bound to look-after and maintain his aged parents and neglect constitutes misconduct rendering the Government servant liable to disciplinary action and deduction of part of the salary for payment to the old a