HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.19110 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2011 **** Mewal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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: Mr. RK Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. VK Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 01.09.2009 (Annexure P6) as well as the subsequent order dated 20.01.2011, a copy whereof has been handed over in Court during the course of hearing, which is marked as Annexure P7, whereby her claim for the grant of ‘family pension’ has been turned down mainly on the ground that her husband Emanual (since deceased) did not exercise option for the pension scheme within the stipulated period during his lifetime. (2). The undisputed facts are that the husband of the petitioner was a Sweeper, who joined the Municipal Council, Dhariwal vide resolution No.19 dated 10.05.1978 CWP No.19110 of 2009.doc - 2 – and continued to serve till he unfortunately passed away on 11th January, 2008. It was only after the sole bread- earner of the family was snatched away that the petitioner thought and applied for ‘family pension’ which has been denied on a hyper-technical ground that her husband did not opted for pension within the stipulated period. (3). The petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that she is willing to refund the arrears of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest, as may be determined by the competent authority, and in lieu thereof the ‘family pension’ may be granted to her as per the Scheme. (4). It is true that in terms of the proviso to Rule 3(ii) of the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (in short ‘the Rules’), an employee was expected to exercise the option within four months from the date of publication of the Rules, however, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner’s husband was an illiterate person serving as a Class-IV employee and there is nothing on record to conclusively suggest that he was made aware of the afore-stated time-bound exercise of option and/or the implications of the non-exercise of such option. (5). It needs special mention here that the deceased employee would have continued in service till September, 2008. The 2 CWP No.19110 of 2009.doc - 3 – occasion to appropriate the amount of Contributory Provident Fund of the deceased employee in lieu of the grant of pension to him would have arisen in the month of September 2008 only. However due to his untimely demise, the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire arrears of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest which would seemingly cause no prejudice or financial loss to the respondents. It has to be kept in view that an extraordinary situation has to be responded with an extraordinary action. The petitioner has lost her husband unexpectedly and the pension/‘family pension’ not being a bounty is claimed by her as a matter of right. It is obligatory on the respondents to have the suitable mechanism in place to ensure that no extreme hardship or injustice is caused to the petitioner or other dependents of the deceased. (6). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned communication dated 01.09.2009 (Annexure P6) as well as the subsequent order dated 20.01.2011 (Annexure P7) passed by the Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies, Amritsar are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to grant ‘family pension’ to the petitioner on the premise that her deceased husband is deemed to have exercised the option for the Pension Scheme, subject to 3 CWP No.19110 of 2009.doc - 4 – petitioner’s returning the entire arrears of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest, as may be determined by the competent authority. The ‘family pension’ shall be sanctioned and released within a period of one month from the date of deposit of such arrears by the petitioner. (7). Needless to say that this order being founded upon peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, shall not be taken as a precedent by those who knowingly or consciously failed to exercise the option for pension scheme within the specified time-frame. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 02.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4