IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.556 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.3.2010 The State of Punjab and others -----Appellants Vs. Jaswinder Kaur -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the State. Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for the respondent. i) Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ii) To be referred to the reporters or not? iii) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been filed against judgment of learned Single Judge allowing writ petition of the respondent for the grant of family pension. Sukhpal Singh son of the respondent was employed as Excise and Taxation officer. He was on probation when he died on 24.6.1989. The respondent applied for family pension but her claim was not allowed on the ground that she was not covered by the definition of ‘family’ under the Family Pension Scheme. Aggrieved thereby, she filed a writ petition in this Court. 2. Learned Single Judge relying upon DB judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kharak Singh Kang, 1998(1) RSJ LPA No.556 of 2002 (O&M) 412, holding that exclusion of ‘parents’ from the definition of ‘family’ was arbitrary, directed grant of family pension to the respondent. 3. This appeal was preferred on the ground that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another v. Devinder Kaur, (1999) 9 SCC 12, upheld that exclusion of parents from the definition of ‘family’ could not be held to be arbitrary. Thus, DB judgment of this Court in Kharak Singh stands impliedly overruled. The appeal was admitted and operation of the impugned judgment was stayed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not disputed that the respondent was not covered by the definition of ‘family’ at the relevant time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kaur held that the exclusion of parents from definition of family could not be held to be arbitrary. It was observed:- “……In the facts and circumstances of the present case there is no question of setting aside any arbitrary condition. In fact, the class of parents is not included at all in the Scheme of 1964. Therefore, there is no occasion for striking down any part of the said supposed illegal or arbitrary condition. It is also pertinent to note that the rule has neither been challenged in the proceedings before the High Court nor before us. Therefore, there remains no occasion 2 LPA No.556 of 2002 (O&M) for the same to be read up or to remove any obnoxious part of the restrictive condition. On the contrary all that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have done is to add a new class of beneficiaries which is not a permissible exercise for the court. A new policy is sought to be evolved by judicial intervention. It is, of course, true that parents now are included in the term “family” by a new amended scheme with effect from 1.1.1996. But that is entirely a different matter.” 6. In view of above, impugned judgment of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 7. Learned counsel for the State also points out that daughter of the respondent was given appointment as Senior Assistant in the Punjab Government on compassionate grounds. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and writ petition of the respondent is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 31, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3