Civil Writ Petition No. 129 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 19, 2008 Virender Singh ............ Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ............. Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present: Shri Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has claimed a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 02.02.2005, Annexure P-4, and order dated 03.07.2006, Annexure P-8, whereby the claim of the petitioner for family pension and other terminal benefits was rejected. Mohinder Singh, father of the petitioner, worked with the respondent on the post of Work-mate for the period from 11.11.1987 to 16.07.2003 and died on 17.07.2003. The claim of the petitioner is for grant of terminal benefits on account of death of the father of the petitioner including appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Haryana Civil Writ Petition No. 129 of 2007 [2] Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 27.03.1993, the Government has decided to regularise the services of all work-charged employees who have completed five years service and, therefore, the petitioner would be deemed to be a regular employee and, thus, entitled to terminal benefits including family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. In reply, it has been pointed out that the services of the father of the petitioner were not regularised as he did not appear before the Screening Committee. In the absence of regularisation of services of the deceased father of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit claimed in the writ petition. The issue whether a work-charged employee whose services have not been regularised is entitled to family pension came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others vs. Surji Devi, Civil Appeal No. 576 of 2008 decided on 22.01.2008, wherein it has been held that the family pension cannot be paid to the dependants of the deceased work-charged employee. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered Rule 3.17-A(g) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Part I, as applicable to Haryana, which is to the following effect:- “ 3.17-A(g). The entire service rendered by an employee as work-charged shall be reckoned towards retirement benefits provided: (i)such service is followed by regular employment; (ii)there is no interruption in the two or more spells of service or the interruption fall within condonable limits; and (iii)such service is a whole time employment and not part-time Civil Writ Petition No. 129 of 2007 [3] or portion of day”. It was held that the statutory provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules debar grant of family pension in favour of the family members if the deceased employee was a work-charged employee and not a permanent employee or temporary employee. The period during which an employee worked as a work-charged employee could be taken into consideration only when his services are regularised and he becomes permanent and not otherwise. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “ 14. The scheme relating to grant of family pension was made under a statute. A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the statutory interdicts. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2, vis-a-vis the Family Pension Scheme, it would be evident that the respondent was not entitled to the grant of any family pension. Husband of the respondent was a work-charge employee. His services had never been regularised. It may be unfortunate that he had worked for 11 years. He expired before he could get the benefit of the regularisation scheme but sentiments and sympathy alone cannot be a ground for taking a view different from what is permissible in law. [ See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal and others, (2005) 2 SCC 638, State of Bihar & Ors v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, 2006 (9) SCALE 549, Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra, 2006(1) SCALE 258, State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. 2006(13) SCALE 319 and State of M.P. And Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007(12) SCALE 72]. The statutory provisions, as noticed hereinbefore, debar grant of family pension in favour of the family members as the deceased employee if was a work-charge employee and not a permanent employee or temporary employee. The period during which an employee worked as a work-charge employee could Civil Writ Petition No. 129 of 2007 [4] be taken into consideration only when his services are regularised and he becomes permanent and not otherwise”. The ratio of the aforementioned judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The family pension is admissible in case of death of an employee or after retirement, if he is in receipt of compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. Therefore, admissibility of family pension is to those dependent family members of the deceased employee who have been granted compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. In view of the said judgment and the fact that the services of the father of the petitioner were never regularised, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension or other benefits. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE February 19, 2008 (MOHINDER PAL) ks JUDGE