CWP No.907 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.907 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.09.2010 Smt. Sewa Rani ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to claim family pension on account of death of her son, who died while working as Pioneer with GREF. The petitioner on the death of her son, was released family pension, under the Family Pension Rules, 1964, as in pursuance of the subsequent amendment in the Rules, the parents who were wholly dependent on the Government servant, when he/she was alive were made eligible to pension, provided that the deceased had not left behind widow or a child. The provisional pension allowed to the petitioner was subject to final decision. On 11.11.2003 the family pension of the petitioner was ordered to be stopped, on the ground, that the petitioner was also getting family pension on account of death of her husband, who was also CWP No.907 of 2010 -2- ex-employee of the GREF. Basis for recording this finding was, that in the income certificate produced by her to claim family pension, it was mentioned that she was getting pension of her late husband. By terming it to be an error, the petitioner filed a civil suit, to challenge the order withdrawing the pension of the petitioner, on the ground, that the reasons given for stoppage of the family pension did not exist, as the husband of the petitioner was still alive and was getting pension. The respondent-Union of India raised objections to the maintainability of the suit, in the civil court. In view of the objections taken, the petitioner withdrew the civil suit and approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has claimed family pension on the ground, that she was dependent on her son when he was alive, therefore, her pension could not be stopped on the wrong reason that she was getting pension as widow of her late husband though, in fact, he was alive. Notice of motion was issued. Respondent-Union of India contested the writ petition. However, the fact that husband of the petitioner is alive has been admitted, in pursuance of the investigation carried out by the respondents, and the certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate confirming that husband of the petitioner was still alive. The reason given in the impugned order for stopping the family pension, therefore, cannot be sustained in law, as the petitioner admittedly is not getting pension as widow. CWP No.907 of 2010 -3- Learned counsel for the Union of India, however, contended that even if for the sake of arguments it is taken that the husband of the petitioner is still alive and is receiving pension of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), still the petitioner would not be entitled to pension, as according to instructions, on which reliance was placed by the petitioner, the parents should be wholly dependent on the Government servant when he was alive. The instructions read as under: - “The relevant instructions including the parents of the employee for grant of pension have been issued vide G.I. Dept. of P&P.W., O.M. No.F.45/86/97-P.& P.W. (A), Part-I, dated the 27th October, 1997, Para 7.2. The relevant part of instructions are: - (21) Dependent parents and widowed/divorced daughters also included in the definition of family from 1-1-1996. - For the purpose of grant of Family Pension, the definition of Family shall also include: (a) Parents who were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child. (b) Son/daughter including widowed/divorced daughters till he/she attains the age of 25 years or up to the date of his/her marriage/remarriage, whichever is earlier.” The contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India was that, as the husband of the petitioner was alive and was getting pension during the lifetime of the deceased employee, the petitioner could not be said to be wholly dependent on the deceased son to be entitled to family pension. This contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India cannot be accepted, in view of the instructions (Annexure R-8), on which reliance was placed by the respondents themselves. CWP No.907 of 2010 -4- The relevant part of the instructions (Annexure R-8) reads as under: - “Sub: Family Pension to dependent parents from 01-01-1998 The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's Resolution No.45/86/97-P & PW(A), dated the 30th Sep, 1997 (Sl. No.205 of Swamysnews, November, 1997 and items (a&b) of para 7.2 of this Department's OM No.45/86/97-P & PW (A) Part-1 dated the 27th Oct, 1997 (Sl. No.224 of Swamysnews, December 1997) vide which it has been stated that the definition of family for the purpose of family pension shall also include (1) parents who were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child and (II) widowed/divorced daughter in respect of whom dependency/income criterion will be clarified separately. 2. It has since been decided by the Government that the income criteria in respect of parents and widowed/divorced daughters will be that their earning is not more than Rs.2,550 per month. The parents will get family pension at 30% of basic pay of the deceased employee subject to a minimum of Rs.1,275 per month. They also will have to produce an annual certificate to the effect that their earning is not more than 2,550 per month, further, the family pension to the widowed/divorced daughters will be admissible till they attain the age of 25 years or upto the date of her remarriage whichever is earlier.” It is not in dispute that pension of the husband of the petitioner is only Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) i.e. less than Rs.2,550/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred and fifty only) per month. The stand of the Union of India only is, that from the first part of the instructions it would be seen that the parents were to be wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive. The contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India deserves to be noticed to be rejected, for the simple reason, that the CWP No.907 of 2010 -5- instructions referred to above are in the nature of beneficial legislation and, therefore, have to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiary. On correct interpretation of the instructions referred to above, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that if income of the parents is not more than Rs.2,550/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred and fifty only) per month from other sources, they would be deemed to be dependent on the deceased employee during their lifetime. In view of the finding referred to above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to revive the family pension of the petitioner, forthwith and pay all the arrears due to petitioner within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 07, 2010 R.S.