1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3946/2002 P.K. Upadhyaya Vs. State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER :: 2.4.2007 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, for the petitioner. Mr. Basti Chand, for the respondents. *** By this petition for writ the petitioner being father of late Dr. Rekha who died as a consequent to an accident on 27.7.1994 while in employment of respondent-University claimed for gratuity, ex gratia payment and other death cum retiral benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The amount of gratuity has already been paid to the petitioner, and therefore, the only question now survives to be decided is with regard to payment of ex gratia to the petitioner being father of late Dr. Rekha. The petitioner has founded his claim by placing reliance upon the provisions of Rule 268-HH of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as, `the Rules of 1951') that prescribes for grant of ex gratia to the family of government servant who dies while on duty in various situations including an accident. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being father of deceased Dr. Rekha is entitled for getting ex gratia in accordance with the provisions of Rule 268-HH of the Rules of 2 1951. I am not impressed with the contentions so raised as the petitioner being father of deceased employee does not come within the purview of term “family” as defined under Rule 268- D of the Rules of 1951 that reads as under: “268D Definitions [1] “Family”, for the purposes of this chapter, will include the following relations of the officer:- (a) wife, in the case of male officer; (b) husband, in the case of a female officer; (c) minor sons; and (d) unmarried minor daughters.” In accordance with the Rule 268-D of the Rules of 1951 a wife in the case of male officer, husband in the case of female officer, minor sons and unmarried minor daughters can only be considered as “family” and the petitioner being father of late Dr. Rekha is not a member of her family. Accordingly, the claim made by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner does not come within the purview of term “family” he deserves to be granted ex gratia in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat & Ors. Vs. Savitri Devi {1996(1) SCC 558} and State of H.P. & Anr. Vs. Kedarnath Sood {1998(2) SCC 361}. In the case of Savitri Devi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme 3 Court looking to the fact that the mother of the deceased employee was of 85 years and having no source of income was given a sum of Rs.6,000/- as ex gratia. In the case of State of H.P. Vs. Kedarnath Sood a sum of Rs.10,000/- was allowed to the father of the deceased government servant though not a part of family in view of the fact that the age of the person concerned was of 80 years and he lost his younger son upon whom the father was solely dependent. In both the cases Supreme Court extended relief under the ambit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. No such power is available to this Court. Beside that in the instant matter the petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition was of 69 years and as stated by counsel for the parties he is an Engineer and is also a retired government servant, as such, he is having sufficient means to sustain and support himself. The gratuity has already been paid to him, therefore, the judgments on which counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance are having no applicability in the present case. In view of whatever stated above this petition for writ is having no merit and therefore the same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. J.Goyal