Swaran Kaur vs Union of India

R.L. Anand, J.—Smt. Swaran Kaur widow of late Shri Naranjan Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of suitable directions in the shape of writ to the respondents and has prayed that she be given family pension.

The case set up by the petitioner is that her son Veer Singh joined the Border Security Force as Constable in the year 1988 and his number was 880054018. He expired on 17.12.1995. Her husband has also expired. Veer Singh was bachelor and she being the mother and class-I heir of the deceased is entitled to the family pension of her son. Her husband during his life-time made an application to the Commandant, 95 Battalion BSF for the release of family pension to the parents of the deceased, but to no effect. Hence this writ petition.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. They filed the reply and denied the allegations. The claim of the petitioner was contested the plea that parents do not fall within the definition of "family" and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the family pension of her son.

I have heard Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, Advocate on behalf of Union of India and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

Annexure P1 certifies that Veer Singh expired on 17.12.1995 at about 0615 Hrs. due to myocardial infarction leading to cardiac respiratory failure. This letter was issued by the Officiating Commandant, 95 BN BSF on 21.12.1998. In these circumstances, it stands proved on the record that Veer Singh died when he was in the service of the respondents.

The sole point now for determination is whether the mother of the deceased is entitled to the benefit of family pension or not. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Rule 54(4)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which defines "family" and according to this sub-rule "family" in relation to a Government servant means wife in the case of male Government servant or husband in the case of a female Government servant, provided the marriage took place before retirement of the Government servant. The learned counsel Mr. Mohunta vehemently submitted that the mother is not included within the definition of "family". In these circumstances the petitioner has no locus standi much less any right to claim the benefit of family pension.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pheuman makes two-fold contention. Firstly, he submits that the meaning of the "family" given u/s 54(14)(b) is no longer a good law in view of the judgment given in State of Punjab and Anr. v. Kharak Singh Kang and Anr. 1998(1) SCT 556 (PH)(DB); 1998(1) RSJ 412, where it was held by interpreting the provisions of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules volume II that a limited meaning cannot be given to the word "family" and exclusion of parents of the deceased government employee from the concept of family has no rationale and this is totally arbitrary ad unreasonable and cannot be sustained to the extent it included the parents of the deceased government employee from the concept of family. It was observed by their Lordships that the parents of the deceased employees cannot be excluded from the definition of "family" or denied the benefits of family pension. The ratio of the Hon''ble Division Bench can be applied for the benefit of the petitioner though this writ covers or interprets Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-11, The language of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 is the same.

The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules strictly speaking are not applicable to the facts of the present case because" this case is covered under the Extraordinary Pension Rules because Veer Singh has expired when we was serving in the BSF. He relies upon Rule 11 of the said Rules which clearly spells out that if the deceased Government servant has left neither a widow nor a child, an award may be made to his father and his mother individually or jointly. In this case after the death of her husband Naranjan Singh the petitioner was dependent upon the benefits of salary of her son Veer Singh. She has not remarried after the death of her husband. Therefore, She is entitled to the benefits of family pension.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even Rule 54(14)(b) which has been relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, has been amended w.e.f. 1.1.1998 by which even the mother has become entitled to claim family pension under the ordinary circumstances. Be that as it may, I hold that the petitioner Smt. Swaran Kaur is the mother of deceased Veer Singh, who died while in service of BSF and she is entitled to the bene-fits of family pension of her deceased son.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and directions are given to the respondents fo release family pension of the petitioner within three months from today according to the rules admissible and applicable, failing which the respondents shall pay interest @ 12% per annum. There shall be no order As to costs.

Copy dasti.

Petition allowed.