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 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 15.10.1984 (P.7).

The petitioner had a son with the name of Balkaur Singh. He

CWP No. 16935 of 2008

2

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 27.3.2006 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 7.6.2006 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 18.6.2008 (P.6)

rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been placed on record which reads

thus:

“ Please refer to your notice dated 4/08 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

26.11.2004 parents of unmarried officers are considered as

CWP No. 16935 of 2008

3

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 not maintainable.”

The petitioner has further claimed that he has obtained the succession

certificate dated 17.10.2006 (P.5) in respect of his son as well