CWP No.14182 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 15.9.2010 Lalita Devi ...Petitioner VERSUS Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sidharth Batra, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. Petitioner's husband late Sh. Ram Brick was working as Mali-cum- Chawkidar. He died in harness on 20.4.2007. The petitioner being the widow and legal heir of the deceased was sanctioned family pension vide Annexure P-4. The petitioner made representation (Annexure P-6) to the Chief Administrator, HUDA that she is entitled to last drawn salary of her deceased husband, in accordance with the Haryana Government policy and Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2006 Rules”), but family pension has been sanctioned in her favour vide PPO CWP No.14182 of 2009 2 No.281 which has not been accepted by her. A request was made to grant last pay drawn, in accordance with the 2006 rules. Petitioner's case was recommended by the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division No.2, Rohtak vide his communication dated 27.10.2008. It is stated in the aforesaid letter that husband of the petitioner was less than 48 years of age at the time of his death and the petitioner is entitled to last drawn salary for a period of 12 years instead of family pension. Despite this recommendation, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide letter dated 15.5.2009 (Annexure P-9) stating therein that once PPO is issued, question of grant of last drawn salary does not arise. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 10.7.2009 (Annexure P-10). The legal notice has been replied by the HUDA asking the petitioner to mark 1st attendance in the office for release of the family pension. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders passed by the respondents (Annexures P-9 and P-11) with a further direction to release last drawn salary of her husband to the petitioner in accordance with 2006 Rules. In the reply filed by the respondents, while admitting the factual aspects of the matter, it is stated by the respondents that once family pension is sanctioned, the petitioner is not entitled to last drawn salary. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 2006 Rules. Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules provides for grant of financial assistance in the following manner:- “5. (1) On the death of any Government employee, the family of the employee would continue to receive as financial assistance a sum equal to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course without raising a specific claim,- CWP No.14182 of 2009 3 (a) for a period of fifteen years from the date of death of the employee, if the employee at the time of his death had not attained the age of thirty-five years; (b) for a period of twelve years or till the employee would have retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation, whichever is less, if the employee at the time of his death had attained the age of thirty-five years but had not attained the age of forty-eight years; (c) for a period of seven years or till the date the employee would have retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation, whichever is less, if the employee had attained the age of forty eight years. (2) The family shall be eligible to receive family pension as per the normal rules only after the period during which he receives the financial assistance as above is completed.” These rules came into operation on 1.8.2006. Admittedly, these rules have been issued in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and thus are statutory in nature. Husband of the petitioner died after the enforcement of these Rules. Rule 5 (1) (b) clearly lays down payment of last drawn salary for a period of 12 years or till the date the employee would have retired from government service on attaining the age of superannuation, whichever is less, if the employee at the time of his death had attained the age of 35 years, but had not attained the age of forty eight years. As per Annexure P-4, the petitioner was to retire on 28.2.2021. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to last drawn salary of her husband for a period of 12 years under the aforesaid Rule. Under Sub rule (2) of Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules, the family pension becomes payable after period of 12 years. Denial of last drawn salary to the petitioner in accordance with the 2006 Rules is totally illegal and unwarranted. No valid ground has been shown in the impugned orders or in the reply to deny the CWP No.14182 of 2009 4 benefit of the Rule to the petitioner. Mere issuance of PPO for family pension does not in any manner deprive the petitioner from her statutory right available to the petitioner under the 2006 Rules. In view of the clear statutory position, the petitioner becomes entitled to the last drawn salary of her deceased husband for a period of 12 years. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P-9 and P-11) are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to release the petitioner last drawn salary of her deceased husband from the date of death of her husband for a period of 12 years and family pension thereafter. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 15.9. 2010 MFK