Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2072 (PNJ)

Krishna Devi v. State Of Haryana

2010-07-21

RANJIT SINGH

body2010
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, who is widow, has made a claim for grant of family pension on account of death of her husband, who was working as Driver with the respondents. The family pension has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that her late husband had only one days regular service when he died and as such, the petitioner would not be entitled to the family pension. 2. Having served in the Army from 23.7.1976 to 31.3.1993 and upon his retirement in the rank of Nayak, the iate husband of the petitioner had joined the respondent Department as Driver on 16.6.1994. Initially, he had joined as a contractual employee. Though he was entitled to be regularised on completion of two years of service but still his services were not regularised. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 7.1.1998 in a road accident. On 10.2.1999, the services of the husband of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 7.1.1998. The petitioner was granted ex-gratia amount due to the death of her husband but her claim for family pension was declined. In fact, the petitioner was granted ex-gratia payment also by this Court when she filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1200 of 2007, which was allowed on 25.3.2009. The petitioner, however, could not make a claim for family pension and, thus, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has been filed. The factual averments made in the petition are not much in dispute. It is pointed out that the husband of the petitioner had only one days regular service, when he died and the requirement under the Rules is that the employee must have one year regular continuous service at the time of death for entitling his L.Rs for family pension. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for family pension has been disputed. 4. in support of his submission, the counsel has relied upon a decision in the case in Civil Writ Petition No. 8183 of 2009 (Neeraj Yadav and another vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 12.10.2009, copy annexed as Annexure P-4. The issue whether one must have one year regular service for grant of family pension was considered in the case of Neeraj Yadav (supra). The issue whether one must have one year regular service for grant of family pension was considered in the case of Neeraj Yadav (supra). Reference is made to Rule 4 of the Family Pension Rules, which have been relied in the reply filed by the respondents. Note under this Rule provides that family pension can be granted before completion of one year continuous service, if the Government employee concerned immediately prior to recruitment to the service or post was examined by appropriate medical authority and declared fit for the Government service. In this regard, reference was made to the case of Smt Savitri Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, 1996 (2) RSJ 854. The Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that even if the deceased government employee does not complete one year of continuous service, his dependent would nevertheless be entitled to the grant of family pension provided the deceased was medically examined and found fit and medical certificate of fitness was produced before entering into Government service. Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 reads as under: - "4. This scheme is administered as below:- (i)The family pension is admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement on or after the 1st July, 1964, if at the time of death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid retiring or superannuation pension. The Family Pension will npt be admissible in case of death after retirement if the retired employee at the time of death was in receipt of gratuity only. In case of death while in service a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break. Note 1:- The term one year continuous service used In para-4(i) above Is inclusive of permanent/temporary service in a pensionable establishment but does not include periods of extraordinary ieaves, boy service and suspension period unless that is regularized by the competent authority or before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government employee concerned immediately prior to his recruitment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate Medical Authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service. 5 The note reproduced above would clearly show that exception appears to have been carved out in those cases to grant family pension even before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government employee concerned had been examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by the authority for Government service. As observed in Savitri Devis case (supra), mandate of the Rule is as under:- "3. The mandate of the aforementioned provision appears to be that in case the Government servant at the time of entry into service produces a Medical Certificate of Fitness, the family would be entitled to Family Pension even if he dies within less than one year. Concededly, the husband of the petitioner did submit the Medical Certificate of Fitness, cop of Annexure P1. 4. The only interpretation which can be placed upon the Scheme as reproduced above is that even if the deceased Government employee does not complete one year of continuous service, his dependents would nevertheless be entitled to the grant of family pension provided the deceased was medically examined and found fit and a Medical Certificate of Fitness is produced before entry into Government Service from a competent Medical Officer. The completion of one year continuous service is, therefore, wholly irrelevant in view of the phraseology of the Family pension Scheme." Reference here can also be made to the case of Sharmila Devi vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, 2002 (4) SCT 178. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court so far as eligibility of completing qualifying service of one year for grant of family pension is concerned, it is held that even if the deceased Government employee does not complete one year continuous service, his dependent would still be entitled to grant of family pension provided he was found medically fit at the time of appointment. The Rule does not envisage any such condition of one year qualifyiiig service. While taking this view, the ratio laid down in Savitri Devis case (supra) has been followed. Taking the similar view, Civil Writ Petition No.3515 of 2009 Mahender Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others, was allowed by this Court on 5.10.2009. 6. The Rule does not envisage any such condition of one year qualifyiiig service. While taking this view, the ratio laid down in Savitri Devis case (supra) has been followed. Taking the similar view, Civil Writ Petition No.3515 of 2009 Mahender Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others, was allowed by this Court on 5.10.2009. 6. Since the petitioner was appointed on 16:6.1994 and was entitled to be regularised on completion of two years service w.e.f. 16.6.1996 and was employed as a Driver, it is obvious that he was appointed after due medical examination and that is how he was regularised w.e.f. 7.1.1998. In fact, the late husband of the petitioner was earlier serving in the Army and died because of accident, which would clearly show that he was medically fit. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is so ordered. It is held that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of family pension, even though her late husband had not completed one year regular continuous service, though he had completed more than three years of continuous service.