DAYA RAM SHARMA Vs. U.O.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Desraj, Rifleman in the 38th Assam Rifles, while still in service, died on 15th September, 2003. He left behind his old parents and a widow. The family pension was sanctioned in favour of the widow in terms of CCS (Pension Rules), 1972 (for short Rules of 1972). The parents in terms of Rule 54(21)(a) were included in the definition of the family w.e.f 1st January, 1996. Respondent issued an order sanctioning family pension in favour of the widow of the deceased Rifleman. An information was given to respondents that widow has remarried. The matter was enquired into and it was found that widow has remarried. Accordingly, order was issued for stopping of the family pension in favour of the widow. The petitioners, who are parents of the deceased rifleman, applied for grant of family pension which was rejected in terms of order dated 20.10.2005, which order is called in question in the writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT have filed the counter affidavit in which two main objections have been raised about the maintainability of the writ petition viz. that the cause of action has accrued at Assam so this Court is lacking jurisdiction to entertain and hear this petition and that the order sanctioning pension in favour of the widow having been issued, petitioners are not entitled to receive the family pension.

(3.) AN employer in a State governed by rule of law and recognizing the basic human rights being guaranteed in the shape of Constitutional rights, is duty bound to provide succor and source of sustenance to those dependent families members, who because of untimely death of the employee are stripped-off the same. Providing family pension has a definite purpose. It is neither a concession nor a bounty which is given to the dependent of the deceased employee. AN employee who has rendered service and who dies while in service or even in the case of his attaining superannuation is entitled to receive the these benefits for rendering service. In the case of untimely death of an employee the situation for the family member which, even, include parents would become worse because they are deprived of source of sustenance. In such circumstances dependants of the deceased employee would literally totter at the blink of starvation if no assistance is provided to them. The family pension rules in the aforementioned background are beneficial in their context, tone and tenor are to be interpreted in a manner which would advance purpose underlying such rules. Till 31st December, 1995 the parents were not included in the definition of family and were not thus eligible for being considered for being paid family pension. The competent authority after considering the issue in broader perspective ordered for inclusion of parents who were wholly dependant on the government servant when he/she was alive for being entitled to receive the family pension. However, in view of the aforementioned rule, the parents would be entitled to receive the family pension, provided the deceased employee had left behind neither widow nor a child. Admittedly in this case the widow was left behind and order sanctioning family pension was passed in her favour. It is also admitted that widow has remarried and respondents have stopped the payment of family pension to her. It is not brought to the notice of the Court that widow has challenged the action of the respondents in not paying the pension to her. Rules 54(21)(a) provides for payment of family pension to the parents of the Government servant but for that it has to be shown that parents were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that when once the order has been passed sanctioning family pension in favour of the widow no second order can be passed, cannot be accepted for the following reasons: