KEDAR NATH SOOD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition, the petitioner is seeking family pension from the respondents from October 15, 1990 after the death of his son Shri R, G, Sood alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In order to understand the controversy, material facts of the case may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner (77) is the father of Shri R.G. Sood who died on October 15, 1990 Shri R G. Sood was member of All India Administrative Service serving the State of Himachal Pradesh and was on study leave to America (Los Angles) when he died. The petitioner was paid Death -cum -Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to the extent of Rs 38,900 through letter of May 13, 1991 - but his case for family pension was rejected on the ground that under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the C. C, S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, father did not fall within the definition of "family". The petitioner laments and contends that Shri R.G. Sood was his only son. He has no other source of income to support himself in this old age. He was completely dependent upon his son who was unmarried leaving no other member of his family, namely, wife or any children

(3.) Respondent -2 called upon the petitioner to fill in necessary forms of pension and furnish requisite certificates in support of the claim The petitioner did the needful and the matter was moved by the State Government to respondent 3 but it was rejected Repeated recommendations of respondent 2 also met the same fate. Left in such a state, the petitioner has preferred the present petition and it has been submitted that Rule 54 (14) (b) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, adopted by the Central Government in application to the members of All India Service, is wholly arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution giving right of equality and right to life. There is no justifiable reason for excluding father and mother from the definition of "family" under the Rules, more particularly, in a case where the deceased happens to be unmarried leaving only father and mother solely dependent on him. It is also submitted that this Rule is unreasonable from another angle; when father and mother are entitled to the benefit of Transfer T.A. and D.A. and also LTC etc. being dependent on such Government servant, there is no justifiable reason to exclude them when the question of payment of pension to them arises.