The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'family' under the relevant rules and the inclusion of father-in-law based on the wider scope of the expression and legislative intent.

M.M.KUMAR, J.

1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for a declaration that Rule 6.16-B of the Civil Service Rules Volume II (as applicable to Haryana) (for brevity the Rules) and Rule 4(ii) of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (for brevity the Scheme) denying family pension to the petitioner who is father-in-law of the deceased employee are unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A further prayer has also been made for quashing order dated June 18, 2008 (P.6) whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in respect of his daughter-in-law has been rejected by placing reliance on Rule 6.16-B of the Rules which does not include father-in-law in the definition of expression family. The petitioner has still further claimed interest on the delayed payment in pursuance of (instructions issued by the respondent State on October 15, 1984 (P.7).

2. The petitioner had a son with the name of Balkaur Singh. He was traveling in his car with his wife Paramjit Kaur and two children namely their daughter Navneet Kaur and son Ripandeep Singh. They met with a tragic accident on March 27, 2006 in the area of village Khuain Malkana and all of them died because of drowning as their car fell in the canal. Their death certificates issued by the Registrar of Births and Death-cum-senior Medical Officer dated June 7, 2006 have been placed on record (P. 1 to P.4). At the time of their death, Balkaur Singh and Paramjit Kaur were working as JBT teachers at Government Primary School Panihari and Govt. Primary School, Dhani Varacha, District Sirsa. The petitioner being father-in-law and the only surviving member in the family applied for service benefits (including GPF, leave encashment, GIS, gratuity and family pension. All other benefits in respect of his son has been paid except family pension. However, in respect of Paramjit Kaur, daughter-in-law except gratuity and family pension, the petitioner has been paid GPF, leave encashment and the amount representing GIS. The basic reason for rejection of the claim made by the petitioner is that father-in-law is not included in . the definition of expression family as per the provisions of Rule 6.16-B of the Rules which deal with payment of gratuity. The impugned order dated June 18, 2008 (P.6) rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been placed on record which reads thus:

"Please refer to your notice dated 4/2008 served on behalf of Sh. Baldev Singh father of late Shri Balkar Singh. In this context it is informed that pension case of late Sh. Balkaur Singh and Sh. Paramjit Kaur had been settled according to the rules of Haryana Govt. As per Haryana Govt Notification dated November 26, 2004 parents of unmarried officers are considered as family members in the family pension scheme. Hence he is not entitled for family pension of Sh. Balkaur Singh and Smt. Paramjit Kaur. Commutation and pension is admissible in case of Service Pension only and not of Family Pension. As far as gratuity in r/o late Smt. Paramjit Kaur is concerned as per pension of Rule 6.16 of Pb. CSR Vol. II parent-in-law do not fall in the definition of family. Hence your notice is neither tenable nor maintainable."

3. The petitioner has further claimed that he has obtained the succession certificate dated October 17, 2006 (P.5) in respect of his son as well as daughter-in-law under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956 which have been issued by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sirsa while exercising the powers of the District Judge. The petitioner by placing reliance on Rule 6.16-A(2) read with Rule 6.16-B of the Rules has asserted that gratuity is payable on completion of five years qualifying service to an officer who dies while in harness as per Rule 6.16-A(2). The gratuity may be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred under Rule 6.16-B or if t