SAT PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of communication dated 12.01.2010, whereby, family pension has been declined to the petitioner after death of his father. A direction has also been sought to be issued to respondents to sanction and release the family pension to the petitioner being 50% disabled person.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that father of the petitioner, namely, Ram Rattan Gupta, was a permanent government employee and was serving as Clerk in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired as Clerk from service on 14.11.1972 and thereafter, he was granted pension as per Punjab Govt. Rules (P.P.P. No. 13768/Pb). The father of petitioner had expired on 06.02.2009. At the time of retirement of father of the petitioner, there was no provision for family pension for disabled children of the deceased government employee under the Pension Rules. The family pension was payable only to the spouse of deceased government employee and the employee had to desire for family pension, and to opt for the same before his retirement. Every employee who opted for family pension, in view of Rule 13.6A, was required to surrender a portion of gratuity equal to his two months' emoluments or pay, which was to be maximum of Rs. 5000/ -. The father of the petitioner did not surrender the portion of his gratuity equal to two months' emoluments and also did not opt for family pension. Thereafter, the State Government issued circular dated 14.04.1978, whereby, provision of surrendering the part of gratuity for grant of family pension to the spouse of deceased employee was withdrawn and family pension was made admissible to the surviving spouse after death of the retired employee. Subsequently, in the year 1990, the scheme was extended to the dependents of the government employee, who were suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or were physically crippled and is unable to earn his/her livelihood after attaining age of twenty -five years.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being dependent son and also being mentally retarded is entitled for family pension but his case has been declined only on the ground that his father did not opt for family pension and did not deposit the emoluments as per requirement of the law. Learned counsel further submits that the father of the petitioner was getting pension and petitioner being dependent son is entitled for family pension. The claim cannot be declined on the ground that his father did not opt for family pension at the time of his retirement in the year 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to pay a portion of gratuity, which was required to be surrendered by his father in November, 1972. Moreover, there was no provision in the rules regarding grant of family pension in the year 1972.