CWP No. 16935 of 2008

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CWP No. 16935 of 2008

Date of decision 22.9.2009

Baldev Singh

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

... Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Anurag Goyal ,Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG Hy. for the respondents

1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

M.M.KUMAR, J.

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 18.6.2008 (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