YUDHVEER SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, STATE TRANSPORT, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.4.2013 rejecting the claim for grant of pensionary benefits on account of death of his father. The denial was allegedly on account of the fact that the petitioner, albeit under 25 years of age, was married while, as per the respondents, the family pension would be admissible to the unmarried son. The learned single Judge in terms of orders dated 2.8.2013, however, deemed it appropriate to enlarge the scope of the petition in view of certain perceived anomalies in the pension regulations. The relevant extract of the order is as under:

(2.) The counter-affidavits of the two State Governments, in our view, seek to place the matter more in the historical perspective of how the rule came into being and how they are at present, rather than considering the perceived anomaly or any endeavour to remove the same. Possibly, the observations of the learned single Judge have not been understood in their perspective but for each of the issues raised justification is sought to be given.

(3.) We are, thus, of the view that on the larger issue the two State Governments need to appreciate the order dated 2.8.2013 in its correct perspective so as to make an endeavour to remove the anomaly and not to justify it, as intrinsically an anomaly needs to be removed.