IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.14441 of 2008 Decided on: August 10, 2011 Pulkit Saini ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Ms. Anjali Soni, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Ms. Anita Dogra, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.3 Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner is son of a government employee, who died while in service. Family pension was sanctioned in favour of petitioner, vide Annexure A-1, issued by Senior Deputy Accountant General (A&E), Himachal Pradesh. Order authorizing family pension, in favour of the petitioner, said that he will be entitled to pension upto the age of 25 years. Date of birth of the petitioner is 11.5.1984 and, thus, as per pension authority letter, Annexure A-1, he was to continue to get family pension upto May, 2009. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 2. Petitioner was given government job on compassionate ground, because of the death of his mother in the year 2002. Thereafter District Treasury Officer stopped paying family pension to him. Representation was made to Deputy Accountant General, by the petitioner, against the act of stoppage of pension. Petitioner was informed, vide Annexure A-11, that his pension had rightly been stopped in view of the instructions of Himachal Pradesh Government, Finance Department, contained in OM No..Fin(Pen)A(3)-1/96-Part-I dated 31.8.1998. Petitioner has challenged the action of stoppage of family pension, by means of present petition, which was initially filed in the form of Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, and on abolition of that Tribunal, the matter has come to his Court. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that because of instructions issued by the Finance Department, vide aforesaid communication dated 31.8.1998, petitioner having been appointed to a government job, has started earning and his earnings being more than `2620/-, per mensem, he is not entitled to family pension. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General. 5. Petitioner’s mother died in the year 1997. Family pension was sanctioned in his favour vide letter, É3É copy Annexure A-1, w.e.f. 11.9.1997, the day next following the day of death of his mother. Admittedly, mother of the petitioner was an employee of H.P. Government. As per Office Memorandum dated 31.8.1998, copy Annexure R-1, modifications were introduced in the Rules, regulating Pension/DCRG and Family Pension, under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and commutation of pension under CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. Para 3 of the said Office Memorandum says that the modified provisions would be applicable to government servants, who retire/die in harness on or after 1.1.1996. 6. Para 10(ii)(b) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum further says that for the purpose of grant of family pension, the definition of ‘family’ shall also include son/daughter, including widowed/divorced daughter till he/she attains the age of 25 years or upto the date of his/her marriage/re-marriage or till he/she starts earning his/her livelihood, whichever is earlier. It further says that son/daughter, including widowed/divorced daughter, shall be deemed to be earning his/her livelihood if his/her income is `2660/- per mensem or more. These modifications, as already noticed, are applicable in the case of government servants, who retire or die in harness on or after 1.1.1996. Petitioner’s mother died in September, 1997. Therefore, the modifications carried out vide Annexure R-1, are applicable in the case of petitioner. É4É 7. Admittedly, petitioner joined service, offered to him on compassionate ground, on 7.10.2002 and his salary is also more than `2620/- per mensem. Hence, on account of his having started earning his livelihood and his income being more than `2620/-, he is not entitled to family pension. Consequently, petition is dismissed. August 10, 2011 (Surjit Singh), J. (ss)