JUDGMENT :

Sindhu Sharma, J.

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of Late Mohammad Iqbal, who was Constable No. 1186/R in Jammu and Kashmir Police, whereas petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 are his sisters. Constable Mohammad Iqbal was killed allegedly by the militants while in action. The case of the petitioners is that they were wholly dependent upon the income of the deceased and therefore, are entitled to the pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits including Provident Fund, as petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are old aged parents and petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 are school going sisters of the deceased, thus, dependent upon him. Petitioners claimed that they have applied for grant of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 6.00 Lakhs pension, gratuity and leave encashment but they have been denied the same by the respondents.

2. The main grounds of challenge are:-

(a) That Regulation 240-E of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations is liable to be quashed being ultra vires of the Constitution as it treats equals as un-equals and is, thus, discriminatory for the purpose of payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits.

(b) That the term ‘family’ for the purpose of Article 240-B as defined in the Regulation 240-C(ii) and the procedure for disbursement is prescribed in Regulation 240-E.

(c) That it regulates section 240-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations Act which provides for distribution of ex-gratia grant to the beneficiaries and annexure-C issued by the Director General of Police dated 18-12-2001. The respondents have processed the case of the petitioner for pension, gratuity and ex-gratia only in favor of respondent No. 5 i.e widow of the diseased excluding the petitioners.

3. Thus the main relief claimed in this petition is:-

I. That Article 240-E of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations be quashed in so far as it discriminates between the family members from the widow of the diseased by issue of a writ of certiorari.

II. That Circular No. AIG(W-EGR/107/2001-57104-205 dated 18-12-2001 issued by the respondent No. 3 be quashed as it deprives the petitioner from claiming ex-gratia relief in on account of death of their son.

III. Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioners the ex-gratia relief, pension and other monetary benefits.

4. In the counter filed by the official respondents, it is stated that ex-gratia relief was paid to the widow of the deceased as per the Government Order No. 723-GR(GAD) of 1990 dated 10.09.1986 and circular dated 18.12.2001. After this, she submitted an affidavit that she would stay with the family of the deceased and would not re-marry.

5. The respondents have objected to the challenge to the pension rules mainly on the ground that these are broadly patterned on the Central Government Rules and not constitutionally valid. The main question for consideration is whether parents are to be treated equally with the widow of the deceased.

6. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are parents while petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 are sisters of the Constable Mohd. Iqbal in J&K Police who was killed allegedly by militants while in action on 30.09.2001. The case of the petitioner is that all of them were dependent on the income of the deceased and are, therefore, entitled to pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits including Provident Fund. As petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are old aged parents of the deceased and petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 are school going sisters and were also dependent upon him and accordingly had applied for payment of their service pension, gratuity and ex-gratia relief to all the respondents. Therefore, in terms of Rule 240-E, all of them are members of family for the purposes of Rule 240-B, as per the definition of family members given in Rule 240-C(ii) of the Civil Services Regulation.

7. The procedure for disbursement of death-cum-retirement gratuity is provided in Rule 240-E of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulation but the respondents have denied the amount to the petitioners in violation of the r