The court established that dependency on the deceased employee is the key factor for family pension entitlement. It also emphasized that imposing income criteria and denying pension based on the husband's income is unreasonable and violative of constitutional rights.

Rajiv Sharma, J.-The petitioner by medium of this petition has assailed the judgment rendered by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 232/2000 decided on 4.1.2002.

2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner’s son late Sh. Varinder Mohan was holding diploma in Civil Engineering. He was appointed as Junior Engineer in 4th Circle, HPPWD, Shimla vide office order dated 9.12.1980. He joined his duties on 19.12.1980. He died on 15.2.1981. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- was paid to the petitioner on 19.10.1982. A sum of Rs. 273/-was paid to her on 30.8.1992 on account of arrears of salary for the period with effect from 1.1.1981 to 5.1.1981. She made various representations to grant family pension to her due to sad demise of son. The family pension was sanctioned on 20.6.2000. However, this order was withdrawn by the respondents subsequently. The petitioner approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. (D) 232/2000 seeking family pension. The same was rejected by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 4.1.2002.

3. Mr. Romesh Verma has vehemently argued that the judgment rendered by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 4.1.2002 is contrary to law. He then contended that his client is eligible to get the family pension due to sad demise of her son on 15.2.1981. He further argued that the petitioner was wholly dependent on her son, who was employed as Junior Engineer on 19.12.1980. He lastly contended that the action of the respondents to withdraw the family pension, which was initially sanctioned on 20.6.2000 by way of Annexure P-18, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Ankush Sood, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. He then contended that the parents were not dependant on the income of the deceased. The petitioner’s husband was employed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT) and is getting pension of Rs. 3257/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to get the family pension.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings carefully.

6. It will be apt at this stage to refer to Government of India decision No.20 (below rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972) and clarification which reads thus:

“54 (20) Dependent parents and widowed/divorced daughter also included in the definition of family from 1.1.1996- For the purpose of grant of family pension, the definition of family shall also include:

(a) Parents who were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child.

(b) Son/daughter included widowed/ divorced daughter till he/she attains the age of 25 years or up to the date of his/her marriage/remarriage, whichever is earlier. Income criteria:

2. The income criteria in respect of parents and widowed/divorced daughters will be that their earning is not more than Rs.2,550 per month. The parents will get Family Pension at 30% of basic pay of the deceased employee, subject to a minimum of Rs.1,275 per month. They also will have to produce an annual certificate to the effect that their earning is not more than Rs.2,550 per month. Further, the Family Pension to the widowed/divorced daughters will be admissible till they attain the age of 25 years or up to the date of her re-marriage, whichever is earlier.

3. It has also been decided by the Government on the basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission and in partial modification of this Department’s O.M. No. 1 (26)-P& PW/90-(E), dated 18.1.1993 (Not printed) that the Family Pension in respect of sons/daughters (including widowed/divorced daughter) will be admissible, subject to the condition that the payment should be discontinued/no admissible when the eligible son/daughter starts earning a sum