SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(J&K) 183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Y.P. Nargotra, J.
Netar Singh & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No. 222/2004
Decided On : 23 May, 2008

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: Surinder Kour
Advocate For Respondent: B.S. Salathia
Advocate For Respondent: Deepika Mahajan

Entitlement to family pension is governed by Rule 22, and dependency of the parents is a crucial factor for eligibility. The court emphasized the presumption of dependency for the mother under Instruction 6 and clarified the conditions under which the mother would become entitled to pension if the father is found disentitled to pension.

Headnote:

Family Pension - Dependency - J&K Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules - Rule 22, Rule 21 - The court discussed the eligibility of family pension for the parents of deceased government servants under Rule 22 and Rule 21. It highlighted the provisions regarding dependency and income limits for entitlement to family pension. The court emphasized that entitlement to family pension is governed by Rule 22 and interpreted the conditions under which the mother would become entitled to pension if the father is found disentitled to pension under Rule 21 read with Instruction 6.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought family pension and other pensionary benefits for their missing and deceased sons who were government servants. The respondents contested the entitlement to family pension based on the income of the parents and the termination of service of one of the sons.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mother was entitled to family pension as she was presumed to be dependent upon the deceased son for being eligible for the grant of family pension, and as her husband was found disentitled to family pension. However, no pension was permissible for the other son due to his termination from service.

Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement to family pension for the parents of the deceased government servants, considering their dependency and income limits as per the J&K Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Rule 22 and Rule 21, emphasizing the conditions for entitlement to family pension, dependency of the parents, and the income limits for eligibility. It clarified that entitlement to family pension is governed by Rule 22 and discussed the presumption of dependency for the mother under Instruction 6.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to fix and grant family pension in favor of the petitioner on account of the death of her son, Amarjit Singh Follower.

1. This petition initially was filed by the parents of Rajinder Singh who was serving as Constable in JKAP 4th Bn. and is missing since 13.8.1990 and Amarjit Singh who was working as a Follower in the Police Department and had expired on 9.12.2000 while in harness, for seeking a direction to the respondents to fix and release the family pension in their favour with a further direction for releasing the amount of gratuity, G.P. Fund, Leave encashment salary, Insurance Claims and other pensionary benefits. The petitioners pleaded that they had only two sons, elder son namely Rajinder Singh was serving as Constable and was posted in JKAP 4th Bn. and has been missing since 13.8.1990, i.e. for almost more than seven years, so he is to be presumed to be dead. As regard the another son, namely Amarjit Singh it has been pleaded that he was appointed as Follower on 15.5.1997 in the police department and expired on 9.12.2000 when he was under the active employment of respondents.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they being dependent on their sons are entitled to family pension which has not been granted in their favour by the respondents.

3. The stand taken by the respondents in the objections is that for grant of family pension in respect of the petitioner No.1, father of the late Follower Amarjit Singh his case was submitted to Accountant General (A&E), J&K Jammu, who sought further information which was submitted along with documents showing that petitioner No.1 Netar Singh father of the deceased Follower Amarjit Singh was received Rs.3218/- per month as pension on 21.5.2002 and as per to certificate issued by the Treasury Officer, Mendhar his annual income was Rs. 37,000/- so in terms of rules, he was not entitled for family pension. It has further been submitted that in case of an unmarried person, the pension would become payable firstly to the father and in case the father is deceased, then to the mother. As income of the father-petitioner No.1, exceeded the limit of Rs. 500/- per month he was not found entitled to family pension. Terminal Gratuity of Rs. 7868/- and GPF amount of Rs. 2175/- already stand released in his favour.

4. According to the learned counsel for respondents neither father nor mother of the deceased is entitled to any family pension.

5. As regards Constable Rajinder Singh, Ex-Constable No. 816 of JKAP 4th Battalion Security Jammu, it has been submitted that the he was deployed along with his Company for law and order duty at Udhampur. He un-authorisedly absented himself from the Company HQrs. at Udhampur w.e.f., 9.8.1990 and was last seen at National Highway opposite DPO Office Udhampur on 13th August 1990 in a drunken state. As such, he was placed under suspension for his indiscipline and mis-conduct vide Order No. 1050 of 1990 dated 21.8.1990 passed by Commandant, JKAP 4th Bn. and thereafter, he was directed to report back at Company HQrs vide wireless message No. 11591-94 dated 20.11.1990, but no response was received from his side. Accordingly, an attendance Notice No. Estt-11596-99 dated 6.11.1990 was flashed at his residence by the respondents, but again no response was received. Ultimately, a final Notice was issued by the Commandant vide office communication No. Estt/13540-42 dated 18.12.1990, directing him to report back at the Battalion Hqrs within two days from the receipt of the notice, failing which he shall be removed from service. Still no response was received from the said Constable. On this Superintendent of Police, Poonch was requested to trace the said Constable-Rajinder Singh, however, Superintendent of Police. Poonch vide his letter No. 5571/GB date 26.11.1990 had informed that the said Constable was not found present at his residence and his father-Netar Singh stated that he might have gone to his in-laws house at Tral. However, on being contacted and asked to report, the SHO Police Station Tral intimated that the absentee Constable had not visited his in-laws house for the last two y





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top