IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 Santosh Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate and Mr. Vishesh Dhaka, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Akshit Pathania, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 01.12.2014 whereby her representation to grant family pension was rejected. She is further seeking direction to respondents to grant her family pension in accordance with New Pension Scheme.

2. The petitioner’s son was recruited as Constable in India Reserve Battalion, 4^th Battalion, Manesar on 26.08.2011. Unfortunately, he died in a road accident on 20.09.2014. He was unmarried. The petitioner claimed family pension. Her case was recommended to Director General of Police, Haryana, however, came to be rejected vide order dated 01.12.2014 ₹

on the sole ground that her income was more than 3,500/- per month, hence, she was not entitled to family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (for short ‘1964 Scheme’). Her son joined on 26.08.2011 and was governed by New Pension Scheme.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has ₹

wrongly applied income criteria of 3,500/- per month. The Government vide letter dated 16.01.2009 has clarified that income criteria for grant of financial assistance to dependent of deceased government employee is not applicable. The respondent in view of aforesaid clarification could not apply income criteria.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner’s husband is working in Haryana Roadways. Their family income was more ₹

than 25,000/- per month, thus, petitioner could not be treated as fully dependent upon her son.

5. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to controvert that petitioner’s husband is working in Haryana Roadways and getting salary from State Government.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that Governor of the State vide notification dated 01.08.2006 in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 of Constitution of India introduced Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short ‘2006 Rules’). 2006 Rules came into force w.e.f. 01.08.2006. Rule 3 thereof provides that eligibility to receive financial assistance shall be as per the provision in the pension/family pension scheme. The expression ‘family’ has been defined under Family Pension Scheme, 1964. Clause 4(ii) of 1964 Scheme which defines expression ‘family’ reads as:

“(ii) “Family” for the purpose of this scheme includes the following relatives of the officer: - (a) wife, in case of a male officer;

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

(c) minor sons:

(d) unmarried minor daughters;

(e) widowed/legally divorced daughters; and (f) the parents of an unmarried officer Note 1.- Clause (c) and (d) include children adopted legally before retirement.

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

[Emphasis supplied]

8. Clause 4(iii) of the 1964 Scheme provides that pension is admissible to parents who were wholly dependent on the Government employee when he/she was alive upto the date of death provided that the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child. Clause 4(iii)

of the 1964 Scheme reads as:-

“(iii) The pension is admissible: -

(a) in the case of widow/widower up to the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier, (b) in the case of son/unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter until he/she attains the age of 25 years; and