The central legal point established in the judgment is the right to family pension for legally adopted children, irrespective of the adoption being before or after retirement, and the discriminatory nature of pension scheme provisions.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the striking down of Note-1 of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) being discriminatory and arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Challenge is primarily raised on the ground it has been provided that under the said offending note that children adopted legally before retirement would fall under the definition of family.

2. It is, thus, contended and argued that fixing the date of retirement as the cut off date would not be legally sustainable and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since a child adopted after retirement is not entitled for the benefit for retiral benefits. Resultantly, writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure P-""), which rejected the case of the petitioner for the claim of family pension on account of the fact that she was adopted on 07.04.1995 whereas, her adoptive father Guggu Ram had retired from government service on 31.07.1993 has been filed. It is not disputed that the right for family pension was governed under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 and the definition of family provided in the same reads thus:-

[ii] "Family" for the purposes of this scheme includes the following relatives of the officer.-

(a) wife, in the case of a male officer;

(b) husband, in the case of a female officer;

(c) minor sons;

(d) unmarried minor daughters;

(e) widowed/legally divorced daughers; and

(f) the parents of an unmarried officer.

Notel.- Clauses (c) and (d) include children adopted legally before retirement.

Note 2.- A judicially separated wife/husband does not loose her/his legal status of wife/husband of the Government employee and is thus eligible for the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964.

[(iii)] The pension is admissible-

(a) in the case of widow/widower upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier;

(b) in the case of son/daughter uptil he/she attains the ase of twenty five years;

(c) in the case of parents who were wholly dependent on the Government employee when he/she was alive, upto the date of death provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child;

(d) in the case of children in the order of their birth and younger of them will not eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him/her has becomeineligible for grant of family pension;

(e) in the case of divorced/widowed daughter till they are alive:

Provided that an unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter will become ineligible for pension from the date of her marriage/remarriage.

Provided further that the son/unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter shall become ineligible for pension if he or she starts earning livelihood.

The income criteria in respect of parents and widowed/divorced daughter shall be that their earning is not more than Rs. 2550/- per month. Provided also that parents and widowed/divorced daughter shall produce an annual certificate to the effect that their earning is not more than Rs. 2550/-per month. The upper ceiling of family pension shall be 30% of basic pay of the deceased employee, subject to a minimum of Rs. 1913/- per month."

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that she is unmarried adopted daughter, aged about 22 years, of the deceased government employee namely Guggu Ram, who retired as Beldar from PWD Department on 31.07.1993. With the consent of his wife Smt. Mansi Devi, Guggu Ram adopted the petitioner when she was 5 months old vide the registered adoption deed dated 07.04.1995 (Annexure P-1A). The proof of adoption is the said registered adoption deed, which would show that Guggu Ram and his wife had no son or daughter and he was 61 years of age and his wife was 51 years old. On account of having no hope of conceiving the child, they had adopted the petitioner, whose