RAJ BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the striking down of Note-1 of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) being discriminatory and arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Challenge is primarily raised on the ground it has been provided that under the said offending note that children adopted legally before retirement would fall under the definition of family.

(2.) It is, thus, contended and argued that fixing the date of retirement as the cut off date would not be legally sustainable and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since a child adopted after retirement is not entitled for the benefit for retiral benefits.

(3.) Resultantly, writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dtd. 30/3/2017 (Annexure P-11), which rejected the case of the petitioner for the claim of family pension on account of the fact that she was adopted on 7/4/1995 whereas, her adoptive father Guggu Ram had retired from government service on 31/7/1993 has been filed. It is not disputed that the right for family pension was governed under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 and the definition of family provided in the same reads thus:-