IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.902 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 04, 2010. Ramanpreet Kaur (minor) and another .....Petitioners versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.K.D.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner No.1 is the minor daughter of late Parkash Singh whereas petitioner No.2 is the minor son of late Shivpal Singh. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them `family pension' on account of the death of their grand-father late Sh.Ranjit Singh who lastly held the post of Centre Head Teacher in the Education Department, Government of Punjab. 2] The undisputed facts are that the grand-father of the petitioners, namely, late Sh.Ranjit Singh had been serving as Centre Head Teacher in the Government Primary School, Bir Khurd, District Mansa, C.W.P.No .902 of 2009 2 when he alongwith his wife Balvir Kaur was murdered on 10.3.2007. Ranjit Singh had three children, namely, two sons Parkash Singh and Shiv Pal Singh and one unmarried daughter, Jashwinder Kaur. Unfortunately, all his three children died during his life time. His eldest son Parkash Singh died on 8.9.2004 and the younger son Shiv Pal Singh died on 7.3.2005. Even before their demise, Ranjit Singh lost his daughter Jashwinder Kaur on 19.7.2003. 3] The petitioners are the minor daughter and son of late Parkash Singh and Shiv Pal Singh, respectively (deceased sons of late Ranjit Singh). The petitioners were born on 24.12.2003 and 2.11.2004 respectively and are just 7 & 6 years of age. The mothers of the petitioners are house wives and unfortunately have no independent source of their livelihood. The petitioners applied for the grant of `family pension' as their grand-father Ranjit Singh was serving in the Education Department, Government of Punjab as a Centre Head Teacher at the time of his death. Though, other retiral dues like gratuity etc. have been paid to them but the respondents have declined the `family pension' on the plea that under Rule 6.17 (3) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-2, the expression “family” does not include the 'dependent grand-children'. 4] I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. 5] The `family pension scheme' is essentially a welfare policy of the State and has been given statutory flavour by incorporating it in the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Rule 6.17 of the CSR, Vol.II, regulates the C.W.P.No .902 of 2009 3 `family pension' and its relevant part reads as follows:- “6.17 (1) The following family pension benefits are admissible to the family of a deceased employee: Pay of the Government : Monthly pension of widow/ employees widower/children (a) Below Rs.400 30% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.60 and maxi- mum of Rs.100. (b) Rs.400 and above but 15% of pay subject to a below Rs.1200. minimum of Rs.100 and maximum of Rs.160. (c) Rs.1200/- and above 12% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.160 and a maximum of Rs.250. 'Pay' for this purpose means the pay as defined in rule 2.44 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 1, Part I, which the person was drawing on the date of his death while in service or immediately before his retirement. If on the date of his death while in service or immediately before this retirement, a person has been absent from duty on leave (including extraordinary leave) or under suspension, 'Pay' means the pay which he drew immediately before proceeding on such leave or suspension. The term 'Pay' shall also include 'dearness pay'. xx xx xx xx (2) The Scheme will be administered as below:- (i) The family pension will be admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement if at the time of death the retired Government employee was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. In case of death while in service, the Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service, without break. The family C.W.P.No .902 of 2009 4 pension will not be admissible in cases of death after retirement, if the retired employee at the time of death was in receipt of gratuity only. Provided that the condition of completing a minimum period of one year of continuous service will not be applicable in the case of Government employee who has been medically examined and declared fit for entry into Government service. xx xx xx xx (3). “Family” for the purposes of this Scheme will include the following relatives of the Government employee:- (a) wife in the case of a male Government employee and husband in the case of a female Government employee; (b) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery, provided the marriage took place before the retirement of the Government employee and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery; and (c) minor sons, and (d) unmarried daughters below the age of 21 years.” 6] It is true that the expression “family” in its literal sense does not refer to the `grand-children' as well but would it amount to their exclusion by a conscious legislative policy? 7] In order to trace out the answer, firstly it has to be borne in mind that the very Scheme of `family pension' is piece of welfare subordinate legislation and is an integral part of the Constitutional C.W.P.No .902 of 2009 5 obligations referable to Articles 38 and 39 (f) of the Constitution. Such a policy must be driven to the widest liberal interpretation. The scheme is meant to mitigate the hardship of those dependents of the sole bread- earners whose sudden death has thrown them mid-stream. 8] The Rule Making Authority, therefore, has couched the expression “family” which is `inclusive' in nature and defines the phrase only illustratively and not conclusively. Had it been the intention to exclude certain categories of blood relations, Rule 6:17 (3) of the Rules ibid would have so provided. 9] The `family pension' is essentially admissible to the “family” of a deceased employee only. Sub Rule(3) while illustrating `family', cannot be construed to have excluded those blood relatives who too as a matter of fact were dependent upon the deceased employee. The only difference between the `included categories' and `deemed to be included categories', would be that the former has a presumption of dependency whilst the later has to prove such dependency. 10] The above given construction of the Rule is well founded upon the cardinal principles of interpretation to be followed where the under lying object of the Rule can be achieved by adopting a pragmatic, realistic and social-justice oriented approach. 11] The interpretation given above, however, need not be stretched and applied where the parent/parents are alive and have their own source of income to maintain the minor grand-children of the deceased employee as such children would not be dependent on their C.W.P.No .902 of 2009 6 grand-father. 12] If one examines the case in hand in the light of the above given meaning to the expression `family', there is absolutely nothing to doubt or deny the petitioners' claim. The minor petitioners, who lost their respective fathers during the life time of their grand-father were undoubtedly dependent upon their grand-father only who was serving as a Centre Head Teacher. The deceased employee has left behind neither his `wife' nor `minor sons' or `unmarried daughter' who could have any preferential claim. The petitioners are definitely the members of the `family' of the deceased employee within the meaning of sub-Rule (i) and they need not depend upon the phrase `family' explained in sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6.17 of the Rules. 13] Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, it is held that the petitioners being an integral component of the “family” of the deceased-employee are entitled to the grant of `family pension' till petitioner No.1 gets married or petitioner No.2 attains majority and/or upto an age as may be prescribed by the Competent Authority from time to time. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the `family pension' to the petitioners w.e.f. the date of death of their grand-father late Ranjit Singh. The arrears of `family pension' shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The family pension shall be deposited in the bank accounts to be opened in the names of the petitioners through their mothers/guardians and the mothers of the C.W.P.No .902 of 2009 7 petitioners shall be entitled to operate their accounts in the interest and welfare of the petitioners. 14] Dasti. October 04, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE