Yudhveer Singh vs Director General

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.4.2013 rejecting the claim for grant of pensionary benefits on account of death of his father. The denial was allegedly on account of the fact that the petitioner, albeit under 25 years of age, was married while, as per the respondents, the family pension would be admissible to the unmarried son. The learned single Judge in terms of orders dated 2.8.2013, however, deemed it appropriate to enlarge the scope of the petition in view of certain perceived anomalies in the pension regulations. The relevant extract of the order is as under:

Perusal of the Pension Regulations reveals some interesting anomalies particularly on the basis of sex and age. In Haryana, in the first place in the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 the very definition of family excludes married daughters. In case of retirement on or after 2006 even married sons are excluded and thus after that date the anomaly has been removed. Further perusal reveals another anomaly in Sub-rules (ii) and (iii) of Rule 4-B as per which in the case of children it would only the eldest eligible child who would be eligible for family pension and the other children would become eligible only on the ineligibility of the elder child. Further perusal reveals another anomaly in Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4-B which talks of lifetime entitlement of disabled children to family pension. Again Sub-rule (viii) lays down that a disabled daughter would become ineligible for family pension from the date she gets married while it is not so for disabled sons. This provision is again duplicated in Sub-rule (x)(b) of the said Rule.

Sub-rule (xi) of Rule 4-B is to the following effect:-

(xi) this benefit will be admissible only to the eligible disabled children whether born before or after retirement provided such son or daughter should be from a marriage, which took place before retirement of the Government employee.

No such stipulation has been made in respect of other categories of dependents the implication is that this requirement is not there for wives & non-disabled children.

In Punjab, the definition of family makes no mention of married daughters but allows unmarried daughters to draw family pension for life and sons upto the age of twenty five years. Further as per Rule 6.17(4)(i)(b) (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II, if the son of a government employee is suffering from any disorder or disability, physically or mentally, due to which he is not able to earn a livelihood even after attaining the age of twenty five years, he is entitled to family pension payable for life.

In my opinion, this is a case where the State of Punjab and Haryana should have a re-look on this entire scheme so as to remove these anomalies. Consequently, the State of Punjab through Secretary, Department of Personnel is also impleaded as respondent No. 3.

The counter-affidavits of the two State Governments, in our view, seek to place the matter more in the historical perspective of how the rule came into being and how they are at present, rather than considering the perceived anomaly or any endeavour to remove the same. Possibly, the observations of the learned single Judge have not been understood in their perspective but for each of the issues raised justification is sought to be given.

We are, thus, of the view that on the larger issue the two State Governments need to appreciate the order dated 2.8.2013 in its correct perspective so as to make an endeavour to remove the anomaly and not to justify it, as intrinsically an anomaly needs to be removed.

We now refer to the order passed by the learned single Judge to enumerate the anomalies as under:-

Haryana Rules:

(i) In sub-rule (ii) and (iii) of Rule 4-B of the Haryana Rules, it is only the eldest eligible child who would be granted family pension and the other children would become eligible only on the ineligibility of the eldest child. This needs to be modified to ensure that the eldest child will get the pension for the benefit of all the children, as all of them are the Class-I heirs. Once the eldest child goes beyond 25 years, then the next eldest may receive on behalf of remaining children and so on.

(ii) Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4-B of Haryana Rules talks of lifetime entitlement of disabled children to family pension but under sub-rule (viii), the disabled daughter becomes ineligible for family pension from the date she gets married which is not so for the disabled son. This anomaly also exists in sub-rule (x)(b). Necessary amendments are required to be made to pay the son and the daughter at par.

(iii) Under sub-rule (xi) of Rule 4-B, the benefit is admissible only to eligible disabled children whether born before or after retirement, but with a proviso that such son or daughter should be from the marriage which takes places before the retirement of the Government employee. There is no such stipulation in respect of other categories of dependents, for wives and non-disabled children and, thus, this qualification is required to be eliminated.

PUNJAB RULES:

Now coming to the Punjab Rules, we may observe as under:-

(i) The first anomaly in the definition of "family" referred to by the learned single Judge is stated to have been dealt with by amendment of the rules in 2008 apart from extending a special benefit to women. Thus, a son irrespective of whether he is married or not gets the family pension up to the age of 25 years while in case of a daughter it is admissible up to 25 years or marriage whichever is earlier while in case of unmarried daughter it is for lifetime.

We are, thus, of the view that there is still an existing anomaly, i.e., the daughter must also get till the age of 25 years irrespective of her marriage and if she continues to be unmarried then even beyond 25 years.

(ii) As per rule 6.17(4)(i)(b)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, if the son of Government employee is suffering from any disability which prevents him from earning a livelihood, he continues to get pension even after the age of 25 years while in case of daughter, her marriage would stop the pension. This restriction is required to be removed;

(iii) The anomaly referred to in para (i) for Haryana rules would also have to be removed vis-�-vis Punjab Rules.

Insofar as the personal grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the same arises out of the denial of pension to him only on account of his marriage even though he is under 25 years of age. It is pointed out to us that possibly the current rules applicable have escaped attention as issued by Haryana Government vide notification dated 17.4.2009 viz. Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-II Rules, 2009, which apply to him. The definition of "family", in this behalf, is as under:-

Definition of family for entitlement of family pension

(i) For the purposes of grant of family pension, the term "family" shall be categorised as under:-

Category I

(a) widow or widower, upto re-marriage, or, as the case may be, death if the recipient remains unmarried till death;

(b) son/daughter (including widowed daughter), upto the date of his/her marriage/re-marriage or till the date he/she starts earning or till the date he/she attains an age of 25 years, whichever is the earliest.

The aforesaid shows that there are three benchmarks qua a son/daughter for grant of family pension:

(i) up to the date of his or her marriage/re-marriage;

(ii) date of his/her starting earning;

(iii) date of his/her attaining the age of 25 years.

The earliest of these three, as per the relevant rules, would be the benchmark to stop family pension. There is, thus, no discrimination and no irrationality to the rules nor is the rules challenged before us. The petitioner in the present case, though is not 25 years of age, got married and, thus, his entitlement for family pension does not exist as per the 2009 Rules.

No relief can, thus, be granted to the petitioner.

The petition accordingly stands dismissed with the aforesaid requirements to be met by both the States of Haryana and Punjab.

List for compliance on 30.05.2014.