LAWS(DLH)-2004-8-48

MEER KAUR Vs. UOI

Decided On August 23, 2004
MEER KAUR Appellant
V/S
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner Special Family Pension w.e.f 5th August, 1994 along with interest thereon.

(2.) The son of the petitioner, Constable Driver Vikram Singh was enlisted in the Central Reserved Police Force (C.R.P.F) on 23rd September, 1991. While working as a Driver in the said force, he applied for and was granted earned leave on 28th July, 1994 from 29.7.94 to 26.9.94. On being granted the said leave, the son of the petitioner left for his home-town. On reaching home, however, on 4th August, 1994 he started vomiting and was immediately taken to Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak, where he died on the same day. After his death, his mother, the petitioner herein, sent a copy of the death certificate to the respondent No.2 praying for grant of Special Family Pension to the petitioner. As the son of the petitioner was a bachelor at the time of his death, he had no other claimant except his mother , who could apply for grant of Special Family Pension. However, in view of the extant rules of the relevant time, the mother of Constable Driver Vikram Singh was not entitled to receive family pension from the respondents and, therefore, the respondents did not pass any order with regard to payment of Special Family Pension to the petitioner. However, in 1998 the rules came to be amended whereafter the petitioner herein also became entitled under the rules to claim the benefit of family pension. However, before any order in that regard could be passed, the petitioner approached this court and during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition in this court the respondents passed orders granting ordinary family pension in favour of the petitioner. The claim for grant of special family pension was rejected.

(3.) Mr.Hooda, counsel appearing for the petitioner has, however, submitted that this petition cannot be said to be infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner was entitled to Extraordinary (Special) Family Pension and, therefore, a direction should be issued to the respondents to pay such Extraordinary (Special) Family pension instead of Ordinary Family Pension.