Back
1995 Supreme(P&H) 1441
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bhawani Singh and Arun Kumar Goel JJ.
Kedar Nath Sood
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1995,
Decided On : DECEMBER 8, 1995
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - ARTICLE 14 - RIGHT TO EQUALITY
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Headnote
FAMILY PENSION - CCS (PENSION) RULES, 1972 - RULE 54(14)(B) - INTERPRETATION - FATHER OF UNMARRIED DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANT - ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY PENSION - HELD, FATHER OF UNMARRIED DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANT IS ENTITLED TO FAMILY PENSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the father of an unmarried deceased government servant, sought family pension from the respondents from the date of his son's death. The respondents rejected his claim on the ground that under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, father did not fall within the definition of "family". The petitioner contended that the exclusion of father and mother, particularly in the case of an unmarried government servant, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the exclusion of father and mother of an unmarried deceased government servant from the definition of "family" under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court further held that the petitioner, being the dependent father of the deceased, was entitled to family pension.
Issues: 1. Whether the exclusion of father and mother of an unmarried deceased government servant from the definition of "family" under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioner, being the dependent father of the deceased, was entitled to family pension?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The right to pension is a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered and is a measure of socio-economic justice. * The payment of pension is not dependent on the discretion of the State but is governed by rules, and a government servant coming within the rules is entitled to claim pension. * The purpose of family pension is to provide sustenance to the family of a deceased government servant, and this purpose is frustrated if children born after retirement are excluded from the benefit of family pension. * The exclusion of father and mother of an unmarried deceased government servant from the definition of "family" is arbitrary and unreasonable, as it fails to take into account the fact that such parents may be completely dependent on their deceased son for support and maintenance.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to calculate and pay the family pension to the petitioner within two months. The court also directed that arrears of pension be paid within one month thereafter, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum until payment.
Bhawani Singh, J.
1. 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.48,900/- 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 CCS (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 certificate 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 CCS (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 ol 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 respondent-2 is based on the application of Rule 22- B(14) of All India Services (D.C.R.G.) Rules, 1958 read with Rule 54(14) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is stated that in view of these Rules, the petitioner does not full within the definition of "family", therefore, family pension cannot be sanctioned to him. As regards other benefits, it has been pointed out 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 respondent-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 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which governs the present case. It has been admitted that respondent-2 had recommended the pension case of the petitioner along with 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 CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965, a Government servant is bound to look after and maidtain 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 and dependent pa
