Kartar Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Petitioner is widow of Shri Gharib Singh, who died on July 21, 1954, while in service. At the time of death, late Shri Gharib Singh had rendered 26 years of service in the Education Department of the Government of Punjab. After death of her husband, the petitioner made efforts to persuade the departmental authorities to grant family pension to her. Some time in the year 1981, she was called upon to submit certificate showing that her husband had died while in service and the petitioner complied with this requirement of the departmental authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to press for her claim regarding family pension but despite recommendation by several authorities of the Education Department, pension has not been paid to her. Petitioner has relied upon the Government decision as contained in Circular letter No. 16/39/85-1FP. III/20911 dated November 4, 1986 (Annexure P-4) in support of her claim that as a widow of the deceased employee of the Govt. of Punjab, she has a right to get the family pension.

Respondents have not controverted the facts mentioned in the writ petition by filing a reply. In the absence of the reply, the averments made in the writ petition will have to be treated as correct.

The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that being a widow of a deceased Government servant, the petitioner has a legal right to get pension in view of the policy decision of the State of Punjab. His argument is that when the Government has decided to extend the benefit of family pension to pre July 1, 1964 retirees, there can be no justification for denying the benefit of family pension to the petitioner.

Learned Deputy Advocate General initially argued that Circular letter dated November 4, 1986 does not apply to the case of the petitioner because no order regarding pre-1.11.1966 employees was issued by the Government as contemplated in that Circular letter but later on she produced a copy of letter No. 16/39/85-IFP II/4820 dated April 9, 1987, whereby benefit of family pension has been extended to pre-1.11.1986 employees of the State of Punjab, This circular letter has been taken on record.

Perusal of Annexure P-4 together with letter dated April 9, 1987 clearly shows that family members of pre-1.11.1986 retirees are entitled to family pension. Once the Government has extended the benefit of family pension to the heirs of pre-1-11-1966 employees, there can be no justification for denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

Pension payable to an employee has been treated as his property in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, , a judgment which has been followed in almost all subsequent decisions. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Devaki Nandan Parshad''s case (Supra) that entitlement of pension does not depend on passing of an order by a competent authority. That right flows from the Rules and therefore, mere failure of the competent authority to issue an appropriate order cannot deprive a retired employee of his right to get pension. In my opinion, once pension payable to a retired Government employee has been treated as his property, it is logical to hold that heirs of such Government servant have a right to receive family pension as their property and this benefit can be denied to them only in accordance with provisions of law. No such provision has been brought to my notice on the basis of which petitioner could be deprived of family pension. Therefore, a direction deserves to be issued to the respondents to give family pension to the petitioner in terms of the policy decision of the Government, as contained in Annexure P-4, read with letter dated April 9, 1987.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to give family pension to the petitioner. Appropriate exercise for grant of family pension to the petitioner be made within three months and payment of arrears be also made to her within this period, failing which she will get interest @ 12 per cent per annum with effect from the date of expiry of period of three months. As an interim measure, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. This amount shall be adjusted while making payment of arrears of family pension to the petitioner in terms of this order.