IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3121 of 2021 Date of Decision: 16.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________

Smt. Kaushlya Devi ……...Petitioner Versus The Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation &

Ors.

…....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 22.03.1997 (Anne xure P-4), whereby prayer made on her behalf for family pension came to be rejected on the ground that mother does not fall in the definition of “family”.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that Mr. Gopal Singh i.e. son of the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 04.09.1989. Unfortunately, above named son of the petitioner died in harness on 25.11.1996 after his having completed more than eight years of regular service as Conductor in the respondents/Corporation.

3. Careful perusal of documents adduced on record by the petitioner clearly reveals that immediately after the death of her son, petitioner kept on requesting the respondents/Corporation to grant her family pension, but every time on one pretext or the other, her rightful claim was not considered and finally vide impugned order dated 22.03.1996 (Annexure P-4), such prayer came to be denied on the ground that in terms of family pension Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1964, mother does ntot fall in the definition of family. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main relief:-

“a. That an appropriate writ be issued, directing the respondents to Crelease/give the family pension on account of death of her son in due course of employment alongwith all consequential benefits with the interest accrued upon the same.”

4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the pretext that in terms of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1964, mother does not fall in the category of dependent of deceased son, as such, she is not entitled to family pension.

5. During proceedings of the case, Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited attention of this Court to office memorandum dated 27.10.1997 (Annexure P-10), issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, New Delhi, to state that for the purpose of grant of family pension, definition of “family” would also include parents, who are wholly dependent on the government servant. He states that since petitioner herein was fully dependent upon the earnings of her deceased son, she ought to have been granted family pension.

6. Mr. Vikas Rajptut, learned counsel representing the respondents, after having carefully perused office memorandum dated 27.10.1997, which came into force w.e.f 01.01.1996, fairly states that in terms of aforesaid office memorandum, impugned order dated 22.03.1997 (Annexure P-4) is not sustainable, rather case of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh by the respondents taking note of aforesaid office memorandum.

7. Having carefully perused aforesaid office memorandum dated 27.10.1997 (Annexure P-10), this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner, being mother of the deceased, is entitled to be considered for grant of family pension, provided she is able to satisfy the department concerned that she was fully dependent upon the earnings of her deceased son. At this stage, it would be apt to take