http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURASTI DEVI

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 713        JT 1995 (9)   631  1995 SCALE  (7)334

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and decree dated March 23, 1995 made in RSA No.618/95 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.      The only question is whether the mother of the deceased employee is  entitled to  the family pension. The High Court in its  judgment had  applied rule  8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and held that the mother is also a dependent. Consequently, she  is entitled  to the  family pension.  The only question, therefore, is whether Rule 8.35 is applicable to the  family pension  and whether the mother is dependent. The  Family   Pension  Scheme  was  brought  into  force  by statutory rules  which was  amended w.e.f.  May 15, 1977. It would indicate  that the  provisions of  these  rules  shall apply to  a regular  employee of  the Punjab Government in a pensionable establishment  on or  after 1st  July, 1964 to a Punjab Government  employee who  was in  service on June 30, 1964 and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme  for the  Government employees. Rule 6.17 [3] defines "family"  for the  purpose of this Scheme to include the relatives  of the Government employee - [a] wife, in the case of  a male Government employee and husband, in the case of a  female Government employee; [b] a judicially separated wife or husband; [c] minor sons; and [d] unmarried daughters below the  age of 21 years. Note 1 includes children adopted legally before  retirement. Note  2 states  that a  marriage after retirement  will not be recognised for purpose of this Scheme. A  reading thereof  would clearly  indicate that the Family Pension Scheme is covered by Chapter VI of the Punjab Civil Services  Rules, Vol.  II. The  enumerated persons are eligible to  get family  pension  according  to  the  family pension scheme.  It is  true that Rule 8.35 defines ’mother’ also as  one of the persons eligible for family pension. But it will  be in  relation to the death due to wounds or other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

extraordinary pensions.  The extent  of the applicability of these rules in Chapter VIII has been enumerated to different persons and  Rule 8.35  [1] enumerates that a family pension will take  effect from  the day  following the  death of the Government employee or from such other date as the competent authority may decide and a family pension will ordinarily be tenable. In the case of a widow or mother until death or re- marriage, whichever  occurs earlier.  In other  respects, we are not  concerned with clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv), as the case may  be. In  view of  the fact  that the  death of  the respondent is  not covered  by Chapter  VIII,  coming  under "special" circumstances,  the normal  enumeration in Chapter VI gets  attracted. In  consequence, the  mother having been excluded  from  the  persons  eligible  for  family  pension according to  Chapter VI,  she becomes ineligible for family pension.      Learned counsel  for the  respondent sought  to rely on the judgment  of this  Court in  Smt. Bhagwanti  v. Union of India [(1989)  4 SCC 397. In that case, the retired employee had married  after retirement and he had also minor children from such  wed-lock. Since  the rules  had excluded the wife who contracted  the marriage  after retirement and begetting the children,  this Court  declared such a restriction being ultra vires  as the Government employee would be entitled to the pension  in his own right which he had earned during his service with  the  Government.  The  ratio  therein  has  no application to  the facts  of this case where the Rules made under Article  309 of the Constitution specify as to are the dependents under  the Family  Pension Scheme.  The  impugned decision of  Punjab & Haryana High Court following the above ratio is not correct.      It is  stated across  the  Bar  that  the  deceased  is entitled to  other benefits,  viz., G.P.F., leave encashment etc., which were granted by the trial Court. In that behalf, the mother  is certainly  entitled to  whatever  claims  the deceased would  have been entitled. Therefore, the decree of the courts  below in  that behalf is confirmed. The State is directed to pay the entire amounts in that behalf within six months from the date of the receipt of this order.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed only  to the  above extent. No costs.