High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Smt.Parmeshwari v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-5007-2006  RD-P&H 2057 (28 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP NO.5007 OF 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 30.3.2006
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. PATWALIA
PRESENT: Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner.
J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 25.7.2005, vide which the petitioner has been denied family pension. The claim of the petitioner for family pension emerges on account of the service rendered by her son Om Parkash with the Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot. While denying the claim of family pension to the petitioner, the impugned order notices, that under Family Pension Scheme, 1964, parents of a deceased are not entitled to family pension. In order to controvert the aforesaid factual position recorded in the impugned order dated 25.7.2005, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a notification dated 26.8.2004 amending the Family Pension Scheme of 1964, by substituting the definition of the term `family". The relevant portion of the notification dated 26.8.2004 is being extracted hereunder:- "(ii) "Family for the purposes of this scheme includes the following relatives of the officer.
(a) Wife, in the case of a male officer; (b) Husband, in the case of female officer.
CWP NO.5007 OF 2006 2
(c ) Minor sons,
(d) Unmarried minor daughter.
(e) Widowed/legally divorced daughters; and (f) The parents of an unmarried officer.
Note 1.- Clauses (c ) and (d) include children adopted legally before retirement.
Note 2.- A judicially separated wife/husband does not loose her/his legal status of wife/husband of the Govt.
employee and is thus eligible for the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964.
(iii) The pension is admissible:-
(a) In the case of widow/widower up to the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier; (b) In the case of son/unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter until he/she attains the age of 25 years; and
(c ) In the case of parents who were wholly dependent on the Government employee when he/she was alive, up to the date of death provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child.
Provided that an unmarried daughter including widowed/divorced daughter will become ineligible for pension from the date of her marriage/remarriage.
Provided further that the son/unmarried daughter including widowed daughter shall become ineligible for CWP NO.5007 OF 2006 3
pension if he or she starts earning livelihood." Having examined the notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner cannot claim family pension even in terms of the revised definition of the term `family' on account of paragraph 4(ii)(f) as well as paragraph 4(iii)(c ), wherein it is expressly provided that parents only of an unmarried employee shall be entitled to family pension, and further, that family pension would not be permissible to the parents of employees who have left behind either a widow or a child. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.7.2005.
( J.S. Khehar )
( P.S. Patwalia )
March 30, 2006. Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.