IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4432/2008 (OA No. 1250/96) Decided on: 21.4.2009 Sushil Kumar ..…Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No. For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. With Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may be directed to grant Family Pension to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.1994. The respondents may be directed to release the arrears of Family Pension due from 1.1.1994 to the applicant so as to help mitigate the grave financial difficulties being faced by the applicant due to lack of any stable source of income. (ii) Directing the respondents to pay a suitable exgratia grant to the applicant, so as to save him from almost certain physical and financial ruin. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) Directing the respondents to pay admissible grant under the State Compassionate Fund. (iv) Quashing and Setting aside Rule-14(b)(ii) of Rule-54 of the family Pension Rules by declaring as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article-14 of Constitution of India.” The learned counsel however restricted his relief to prayer-(i) only. Shri Phuhnu Ram was employed with the respondents. He was entitled to family pension. There is no dispute about the same. He retired from the service in the year 1947-48. Shri Phuhnu Ram left behind his wife Smt. Suharu Devi who also was granted family pension. During her life time, she adopted the present petitioner Shri Sushil Kumar as her son in the year 1987. The adoption took place in accordance with the deed of adoption Annexure A-2. The validity of adoption is not in question. Smt. Suharu Devi died on 31st of December 1993 when the present petitioner was below 25 years of age. As such, he applied to the government for the family pension in accordance with the Family Pension Rules. His request was turned down on the ground that since the petitioner’s adoption was not during the life time of the employee Shri Phuhnu Ram, hence, he was not entitled for the family pension. The decision was taken on the recommendation of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A&E), H.P. Shimla. There is no dispute that the service condition of the employee, with regard to the pension were governed 3 under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rule 1972’). Relevant extract of Rule 54 (14) is as under:- “(14) For the purposes of this rule,- 2(b) “family” in relation to a Government servant means- (i) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant. (ia) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery. (ii) son who has not attained the age of twenty five years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty five years, including such son and daughter adopted legally.” Sub rule 14(b) (ii) was amended on 18th of January 1993 and 5th of June 1990 and the words “before retirement” and “but shall not include son or daughter born after retirement” stood omitted. The definition of family, thus as on the date of the adoption of the petitioner by Smt. Suharu Devi stood amended. A liberal interpretation is required to be given to a beneficial legislation. The definition clause is inclusive. Therefore, even an adopted son under 25 years of age would constitute a family. Undisputedly, the petitioner was below 25 years of age as on the date Smt. Suharu died. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents’ action in rejecting the petitioner’s request for family pension is untenable in law. The petition was filed in the year 1997 and the petitioner has of course now acquired majority. The respondents are directed to release the arrears of the family pension due and payable to the petitioner, in accordance with the rules, within a period of three months from today. The petition is disposed of as such. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 21, 2009 (vs)