SWARAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claim of a widow for Dearness Allowance on family pension received by her as widow of Narinder Singh, an erstwhile Government employee, it appears to us, has been disputed and ultimately denied on wholly untenable grounds.

(2.) Husband of the petitioner, Narinder Singh, was employed as Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Banur, District Patiala and while in service he died on January 30, 1988 at the age of 53 years leaving behind one son and one daughter besides the petitioner. It is the positive case of the petitioner that she had not remarried after the death of her husband nor any of her family members had secured any job on compassionate grounds on account of death of her husband. Family pension was, however, sanctioned @ Rs. 1200/- per month for the first seven years i.e. till February 1995 which was to be reduced to Rs. 900/- per month after five years. Petitioner asserts that her family was entitled to Dearness Allowance alongwith family pension w.e.f. February 1, 1992 vide para 1-A(c) of the letter dated August 23, 1993 which deals with family pension and has been issued by the Punjab Government itself. It was, however, refused to her on the sole ground that family pensioners, who were employed on compassionate grounds after the death of bread winner, were not entitled to Dearness Allowance. She raised number of verbal and written protests by clearly stating that none of her family members had got employment on compassionate grounds and that she was in service at the time when her husband died. Her repeated demands, both verbal and written, as mentioned above, however, fell on the deaf ears. Constrained, thus, Smt. Swaran Kaur, petitioner herein, seeks Dearness Allowance on the family pension sanctioned on account of death of her husband, through present petition.

(3.) In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate replies. Nothing worth - while has been mentioned in the written statement filed on the behalf of respondent No. 2. However, claim of the petitioner has been resisted and sought to be denied in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner is working as Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Manakpur, District Patiala, under the Punjab Government. As per instructions of the Government dated June 15, 1994 Dearness Allowance is not allowed on the family pension because she is getting DA on her own basic pay. Even though there is reference of some instructions dated June 15, 1994, in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, these instructions have not been appended with the written statement nor, during the course of arguments, any such instructions have been brought to the notice of the Court. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has candidly admitted that there are neither any rules nor any instructions that might disentitle Dearness Allowance on family pension to a person who himself/herself is in the Government employment. Learned counsel, however, submits that once a person is in employment and is getting Dearness Allowance commensurate to his/her pay scale he/she cannot be entitled to Dearness Allowance on the family pension and that will amount to giving undue benefit to an employee.