PARMESHWARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 25.7.2005, vide which the petitioner has been denied family pension. The claim of the petitioner for family pension emerges on account of the service rendered by her son Om Parkash with the Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot. While denying the claim of family pension to the petitioner, the impugned order notices, that under Family Pension Scheme, 1964, parents of a deceased are not entitled to family pension. In order to controvert the aforesaid factual position recorded in the impugned order dated 25.7.2005, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a notification dated 26.8.2004 amending the Family Pension Scheme of 1964, by substituting the definition of the term 'family". The relevant portion of the notification dated 26.8.2004 is being extracted hereunder:-

(2.) HAVING examined the notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner cannot claim family pension even in terms of the revised definition of the term 'family' on account of paragraph 4(ii)(f) as well as paragraph 4(iii)(c ), wherein it is expressly provided that parents only of an unmarried employee shall be entitled to family pension, and further, that family pension would not be permissible to the parents of employees who have left behind either a widow or a child. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.7.2005. Dismissed.