Kala Devi vs State of Haryana and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The widow of late Professor Mohinder Singh Phor has approached this Court in terms of filing the instant writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to grant to her family pension under the provisions of Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ''1964 Scheme''). It has been pleaded that late Shri. Mohinder Singh Phor was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science in the Haryana War Heroes Memorial College, Gohana, District Sonepat on 6.10.1971. Such College was thereafter taken over by the State of Haryana on 18.8.1980. In pursuance thereto, some of the members of the staff of the Haryana War Heroes Memorial College, Gohana including the late husband of the petitioner were issued fresh appointment orders from the Office of the Director of Higher Education Haryana. The husband of the petitioner as such entered in the Government service w.e.f. 12.2,1981. Unfortunately, Professor Mohinder Singh Phor died on 27.3.1981. The petitioner earlier in point of time approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 15574 of 1997 for the grant of family pension but such petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order, dated 11.3.1998, Annexure P7.

The present petition has been filed yet again raising identical claim on the strength of clarification issued vide memo dated 23.4.2010 by the State of Haryana as regards Note-I, para 4(i) Appendix-I of the 1964 Scheme, Annexure P8.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court on 11.3.1998 in terms of holding the husband of the petitioner having not put in the requisite period of one year of regular service with the Government in the light of the 1964 Scheme. Learned counsel would argue that in the light of the clarification dated 23.4.2010, the Government itself had clarified that where a Government servant dies before completion of one year of continuous service provided such deceased Government servant immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post had been examined by the appropriate Medical Authority and had been declared fit for Government service, then the family of the deceased shall be entitled to family pension and in such eventuality, the expression "continuous one year of service" wherever it occurs in Note-I, para 4(i) would have to be construed to include even such service which is for a period of less than one year.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I find that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived.

The claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension would require examination in the light of the provisions of the 1964 Scheme contained in Appendix-I of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Haryana) Vol. II. Rule 4(i) and Note-I of such Scheme read in the following terms:

This scheme is administered as below:-

(i) The family pension is admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement on or after the 1st July, 1964, if at the time of death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. The Family Pension will not be admissible in case of death after retirement if the retired employee at the time of death was in receipt of gratuity only. In case of death while in service a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break.

Note-I. The term one year continuous service used in para-4 (i) above is inclusive of permanent/temporary service in a pensionable establishment but does not include periods of extraordinary leaves, boy (sic) service and suspension period unless that is regularized by the competent authority or before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government employee concerned immediately prior to his recruitment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate Medical Authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service.

A perusal of the same would make it apparent that family pension is admissible in the case of death in service of a Government employee who has completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break. Note-I which appears below Rule 4(i) defines the term of one year continuous service used in Rule 4(i) to be inclusive of permanent/temporary service in a pensionable establishment.

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner had joined Government service w.e.f. 12.2.1981 upon the Haryana War Heroes Memorial College, Gohana having been taken over by the Government where he had been serving on the post of Lecturer (Political Science). A perusal of letter dated 18.8.1980, Annexure P1, on the "subject of taking over" of Haryana War Heroes Memorial College Gohana by the Government would clearly reveal that only such members of the staff of the College would be considered suitable for absorption in Government service in the light of the qualifications held etc. and such staff members would be treated as new entrants. The husband of the petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions as regards his absorption into Government service w.e.f. 12.2.1981 having been treated as a new entrant. He died on 27.3.1981 having served one month andl4 days in Government service. Such fact was specifically taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, A perusal of the order dated 11.3.1998 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15574 of 1997 would, also reveal that the petitioner had not made-out a case that the Haryana War Heroes Memorial College, Gohana was a pensionable establishment and as such, the benefit of Note-I under Rule 4(i) had been held to be of no avail to the petitioner, having no applicability.

The petitioner cannot gain any impetus from the clarification dated 23.4.2010, Annexure P8, as, such clarification pertains to Note-I below Rule 4(i) Appendix-I of the 1964, Scheme and such Note covers only such cases where a Government employee prior to joining service had served in a pensionable establishment. There is no merit in the present writ-petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.