AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Daya Chaudhary, J.—The issue in the present case is as to whether the petitioner, who is mother of the deceased government employee, can be excluded from the definition of ''family'' and denied benefits of family pension. The present petitioner is the mother of deceased-Virender Singh, who has filed this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing of letter dated 22.12.2009 issued by respondent No. 1.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner was working as Process Server in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. He was survived by his mother, the present petitioner, and respondent No. 3-Sandeep, minor son. Respondent No. 4-Babita got divorce from son of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 12.01.2010, it was intimated by District and Sessions Judge, Fatehabad to respondent No. 4-Babita that the financial assistance has been allowed in favour of minor son-Sandeep with specific stipulation that 75% of the monthly assistance is to be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of minor in some nationalized bank till he attains the age of majority and remaining 25% was to be disbursed to respondent No. 4-Babita on behalf of minor son, being natural guardian for the purpose of his up keeping and education. A copy of said letter was endorsed to the present petitioner.
A representation was made by the petitioner on 01.01.2010 for release of after death benefits including family pension to her being mother of the deceased but no action was taken thereupon.
The grouse of the petitioner is that without considering her representation, a letter dated 12.01.2010 has been issued to respondent No. 4-Babita.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner, who is mother of the deceased, is a widow lady and was dependent upon the income of the deceased and hence, being a dependent family member, is also entitled for 50% of the financial assistance including family pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case State of Punjab and Another Vs. Kharak Singh Kang and Another, , in support of his contentions.
Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has also been filed, which is on record, wherein, it has been stated that the present petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for after death benefits as she is not included in the definition of family.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits when widow and son of the deceased are there.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file.
Undisputedly, deceased-Virender Singh was survived by his widow mother, who is the present petitioner, and respondent No. 3-Sandeep, who is son of the deceased. Respondent No. 4-Babita got divorce from son of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act vide judgment dated 04.01.2006. The present petition has been filed by mother of the deceased on the ground that she, being dependent upon income of his deceased son, is also entitled for after death benefits as son of the deceased is minor and wife of the deceased got divorce prior to the death of her husband. Minor son is being maintained by the present petitioner and the divorcee wife has no right to claim any benefit after death of her husband. A letter dated 06.08.2009 was written to respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 2 for giving information as to whether she has got remarried after divorce or not or whether the minor son is residing with her. It was also asked whether any natural guardian has been appointed by any Court or not. A copy of that letter was also sent to the present petitioner. No reply of respondent No. 4 is on record, whereas, the present petitioner had made a representation as a copy of said letter was also endorsed to her. It was mentioned therein that respondent No. 4 took divorce from the deceased with mutual consent and a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed on 04.01.2006. Respondent No. 4-Babita had also received a permanent alimony in lump-sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for herself and minor son and as such, she is not entitled for any amount out of death benefits.
Now the question for consideration by this Court is as to whether the mother comes in the definition of "family" of the deceased son or not. Under Family Pension Scheme, 1964, "Family" for the purpose of this scheme includes the following relatives of the deceased employee:--
(a) wife, in the case of a male officer;
(b) husband, in case of a female officer;
(c) minor sons;
(d) unmarried minor daughters;
(e) widowed/legally divorced daughters; and
(f) the parents of an unmarried officer.
As per Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005, the "eligible family member" includes (i) surviving spouse (ii) children excluding married daughter (iii) surviving parents. 50% has been specified for surviving spouse, 25% for children and 25% for surviving parents. "Family" has been defined, which is reproduced as under:-
"(g) "family" means-
(i) spouse of the deceased Government employee or missing Government employee;
(ii) son including adopted son subject to the proof of adoption as envisaged in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), till he attains the age of 35 years;
(iii) unmarried daughter [including adopted daughter subject to the proof of adoption as envisaged in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956)] as also divorcee or widowed, provided the divorcee/widowed daughter was dependant on the deceased and living with the deceased or his family, till she attains the age of 35 years;
(iv) parents of the deceased Government employee, who were dependant on the deceased Government employee;
(v) in the eventuality of the deceased Government employee being unmarried, brother/sister, not above the age of 35 years. In case of conflict of interest between brother and sister, brother/sister in whose favour option in writing is exercised by both the parents of the deceased Government employee, shall be considered the eligible family member;
(vi) In the eventuality of the deceased Government employee being a divorcee, unmarried son/unmarried, divorced or widowed daughter, not above the age of 35 years;"
An identical issue was before the LPA Bench in case National Insurance Company Limited and others v. Gurdev Kaur and another 2007 (2) RSJ 183, wherein, the appeal filed by Insurance Company was dismissed and it was held that even the parents are eligible for grant of certain kinds of pension.
In case Smt. Daljeet Kaur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the appellant was included in the family. Although, it was in different context but in the definition of family in Pension Rules, the parents were included. The relevant para of said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"2. Love of a mother for her children has, since time immemorial, been placed at the highest pedestal. When a mother loses a hale and hearty child in some unfortunate accident, she suffers a tragedy which is personal to her and is of such magnitude that it defies description in mere words. The love of the mother is very akin to the love of the earth for its inhabitants. It is perhaps this boundless love which prompts and compels the entire mankind to revere this planet as the "MOTHER-EARTH". It is well known that the mother earth keeps replenishing its natural resources to support the humanity, in spite of the mindless plunder committed upon it by us. We are of the opinion that keeping such like sentiments in view, the Union of India has been promulgating various schemes to give special benefits in cases of death and compensation. The reasons have been set out in the instructions of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, letter No. 20(1)/98/D (Pay/Services) dated 22 Sep., 98 as amended vide Government of India Letter No. 20(1)(/98/D9 (Pay/Service) dated 3 Aug., 99. The instructions give objects and reasons for enacting special provisions in these words.
"The graded structure of ex-gratia lump sum compensation takes into account the hardship and risks involved in certain assignments, the intensity and magnitude of the tragedy and deprivation that families of government servants experience on the demise of bread winner in different circumstances the expectations of the employer from the employee to function in extreme circumstances etc. The compensation is intended to provide an additional insurance and security to employees who are required to function under trying circumstances and are exposed to different kinds of risks in the performance of their duties.
Alas even these provisions will, at best, go only a little way towards assuaging the feeling of utter devastation of the mother who loses a son, whilst performing his patriotic duties for the protection of the Nation.
Can the benefits sought to be given to the unfortunate legal heir of a deceased military personnel whose case falls clear within these instructions, be permitted to be negated by a bureaucratic army officer sitting in his Ivory Tower by sheer misinterpretation of the instructions, is the significant question of law which arises in this petition. We are constrained to give a preference to this judgment with the aforesaid remarks due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this, which we now notice."
The purpose of the rules relating to family pension is to provide financial assistance to the members of the family of the deceased employee. Not only the widow and children are dependant upon the income of the deceased employee but the old parents as well. In the present case, the petitioner is widow mother, having no source of income and is of more than 77 years of age. Nothing has been brought on record that she is getting some income from other source. Keeping in view the facts as mentioned above in the present case that the wife of the deceased has got divorce prior to the death of son of the petitioner and she has also received the permanent alimony; the present petitioner is widow mother and was dependent upon income of her son as her husband has already expired. At the time of filing this petition in the year 2010, she was 74 years of age and now being more than 77 years of age, having no source of income to support herself, has been deprived from the benefits which have been released by the respondent-Department to the son of deceased, this petition deserves to be allowed and order dated 22.12.2009 issued by respondent No. 1 is modified with the direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to grant 50% of the family pension to the present petitioner, who is mother of the deceased and the remaining 50% be released in favour of minor son of the deceased.
Allowed with the above said directions.