BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for a declaration that Rule 6.16-B of the Civil Service Rules Volume II (as applicable to Haryana) (for brevity 'the Rules') and Rule 4(ii) of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (for brevity 'the Scheme') denying family pension to the petitioner who is father-in-law of the deceased employee are unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A further prayer has also been made for quashing order dated June 18, 2008 (P.6) whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in respect of his daughter-in-law has been rejected by placing reliance on Rule 6.16-B of the Rules which does not include father-in-law in the definition of expression 'family'. The petitioner has still further claimed interest on the delayed payment in pursuance of (instructions issued by the respondent State on October 15, 1984 (P.7).

(2.) The petitioner had a son with the name of Balkaur Singh. He was traveling in his car with his wife Paramjit Kaur and two children namely their daughter Navneet Kaur and son Ripandeep Singh. They met with a tragic accident on March 27, 2006 in the area of village Khuain Malkana and all of them died because of drowning as their car fell in the canal. Their death certificates issued by the Registrar of Births and Death-cum-senior Medical Officer dated June 7, 2006 have been placed on record (P. 1 to P.4). At the time of their death, Balkaur Singh and Paramjit Kaur were working as JBT teachers at Government Primary School Panihari and Govt. Primary School, Dhani Varacha, District Sirsa. The petitioner being father-in-law and the only surviving member in the family applied for service benefits (including GPF, leave encashment, GIS, gratuity and family pension. All other benefits in respect of his son has been paid except family pension. However, in respect of Paramjit Kaur, daughter-in-law except gratuity and family pension, the petitioner has been paid GPF, leave encashment and the amount representing GIS. The basic reason for rejection of the claim made by the petitioner is that father-in-law is not included in the definition of expression 'family' as per the provisions of Rule 6.16-B of the Rules which deal with payment of gratuity. The impugned order dated June 18, 2008 (P.6) rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been placed on record which reads thus:

(3.) The petitioner has further claimed that he has obtained the succession certificate dated October 17, 2006 (P.5) in respect of his son as well as daughter-in-law under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956 which have been issued by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sirsa while exercising the powers of the District Judge. The petitioner by placing reliance on Rule 6.16-A(2) read with Rule 6.16-B of the Rules has asserted that gratuity is payable on completion of five years qualifying service to an officer who dies while in harness as per Rule 6.16-A(2). The gratuity may be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred under Rule 6.16-B or if there is no such person, it shall be paid in equal shares to those surviving members of a Government employee's family as detailed in the aforesaid rule. In case there are no surviving members, he has surviving widowed daughter and/ or one or more members of the family of the Government employee who belong(s) to categories (v) to (ix) of Rule 6.16-B(1) of the Rules, then the gratuity may be paid to all such persons in equal shares. It has also been asserted that his deceased daughter-in-law Paramjit Kaur is survived by her father-in-law, one brother who is married and two sisters who are also married. Her real father and mother had already expired. It is thus claimed that the petitioner is the only surviving successor for the purposes of gratuity. He has been denied the payment of gratuity on account of the fact that father-in-law is not covered by the definition of 'family' as given in Rule 6.16-B(1) of the rules. It has also been claimed that once GPF, GIS and leave encashment has been paid to the petitioner then denial to pay gratuity is not legally sustainable. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 6.16-B of the Rules which excludes father-in-law from the definition of the family. Rule 4(ii) of the Scheme has also been challenged on the same ground. The petitioner has also placed reliance on various provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to claim that father-in-law would be included in the definition of expression 'family. The petitioner has also sought support from the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the purposes of showing that father-in-law is included in the definition of 'family'.