Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1295 (PNJ)

Amarjit Kaur Sodhi v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-25

M.M.KUMAR, S.S.NIJJAR

body2002
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.2 050, 8375, 9899, 30223, 10559, 10565, 15056, 15388, 15452, 16076, 19128 of 1997. 3593, 4932, 5604, 6258, 7464, 7855 and 10532 of 1998. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petitions No. 7855 of 1998. 2. Petitioners in this case are working in the department of Education, Punjab on various posts. Their spouses were also working in various departments of Punjab when they died in harness. None of these petitioners was appointed in the department of Education on compassionate ground on the death of their spouses. Thus, the petitioners were working on the posts in their own independent capacities. The petitioners claimed the benefit of family pension, inclusive of dearness allowance under the relevant rules. 3. The short grievance of the petitioners is that although the petitioners have been granted family pension but they have been denied dearness allowance on the family pension. The benefit of Dearness Allowance has been denied to the petitioners on the ground that they are already being granted Dearness Allowance on the salary they earn. Consequently, the petitioners were constrained to move this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for necessary directions by way of writ of mandamus. 4. Mr. R.C. Chatrath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that the controversy raised in this petition is no longer res-integral as the matter is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case Swaran Katir v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1997(1) R.S.J. 325. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners is para materia to the case of the petitioners Swaran Kaur. In this case also none of the petitioners have been employed on compassionate grounds. 5. State of Punjab has not filed any written statement. Therefore, the factual position is not controverted. 6. It is submitted by Shri R.C. Chatrath that the afore-said judgment in the case of Swaran Kaur has in fact been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of H.S.E.B. and Ors. v. Azad Kaur, 2002(1) R.S.J. 402. 5. State of Punjab has not filed any written statement. Therefore, the factual position is not controverted. 6. It is submitted by Shri R.C. Chatrath that the afore-said judgment in the case of Swaran Kaur has in fact been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of H.S.E.B. and Ors. v. Azad Kaur, 2002(1) R.S.J. 402. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has held as under: "The appellants have relied upon a letter dated 20.3.1980 from the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Government of Haryana circulated to all the Heads of the Department under which it is clarified that the payment of adhoc relief on pension shall remain suspended when a person is in receipt of family pension/ extra-ordinary pension is employed/re-employed. The appellants contend that whenever a recipient of a family pension is employed, the Ad-hoc relief on pension shall not be granted. In our view, this is not a correct interpretation of the letter of 20.3.1980. As the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. G. Vasudevan Pillary and Ors. (supra) shows, the principles on which ad-hoc relief is withheld, is that if a recipient of a family pension has received an additional benefit in the form of either re-employment or an employment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the employee, the need to provide another cushion in the form of ad-hoc relief is not there. The word employed used in the letter of 20.3.1980 in that context can only refer to the kind of employment which is secured by the widow of a family member on account of or in the context of the death of the employee in respect of whom family pension is being paid. It can have no reference to any independent employment or any other independent source of livelihood which the family members may possess. The mere fact that the widow is independently employed as a teacher elsewhere even prior to the death of her husband, cannot deprive the family of the benefit of the ad-hoc relief on family pension. It can have no reference to any independent employment or any other independent source of livelihood which the family members may possess. The mere fact that the widow is independently employed as a teacher elsewhere even prior to the death of her husband, cannot deprive the family of the benefit of the ad-hoc relief on family pension. Our attention is drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Swaran Kaur v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (CWP No. 17698/1995) reported in 1997(1) R.S.J. 325 where the High Court, after ascertaining that the petitioner therein had not secured any job on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her husband, nor had any family member done so held that Dearness Allowance on family pension could not be withheld. It said that the fact that the widow was in service at the time when her husband died would not deprive her of Dearness Allowance on family pension when the employment was not on compassionate grounds. We, therefore, agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the High Court in the impugned judgment." 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court as noticed above, this writ petition has to be allowed. 8. Consequently, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2050, 8375, 9899, 10223, 10559, 10565, 15056, 15388, 15452, 16076, 19128 of 1997, 3593, 4932, 5604, 6258, 7364, 7855 and 10532 of 1998 are allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant dearness allowance on the family pension to the petitioners in accordance with the rules. Let the revised pension be computed within a period of two months of the receipt of copy of this order. After the pension is re-computed, the arrears of the family pension be released to the petitioners within two months thereafter. If the arrears are not paid within the period stipulated above, then, the petitioners shall be entitled to receive the aforesaid benefits with interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date it became due till payment.