KARTTYANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, mother of late Miss Vasanthi Kumari, has filed this writ petition for claiming family pension, on account of death of her daughter Miss Vasanthi Kumari, who was working as Ladies Health Visitor (for short as 'LHV') at Primary Health Centre, Swaroopganj Distt. Sirohi and had died while in service on 19.8.1990 after rendering the total service of 18 years, 7 months and 22 days from 27.1.1972 to 19.8.1990. It is stated by the petitioner that her daughter was unmarried and the petitioner was totally dependent on her for her livelihood. The husband of the petitioner had also died on 6.10.1986. It is stated that all the expenses of the family were being met by her daughter and the petitioner had no source of income whatsoever except the income of her late daughter Miss Vasanthi. It is stated that the petitioner was entitled to family pension in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and she had also applied for the family pension on account of death of her daughter which was duly recommended by the Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer (Family Welfare), Sirohi to the Pension Department vide letter dated 20.1.1994, copy of which has been attached as Annex. A/2. But ultimately, her claim was rejected vide order dated 16.8.1994 (Annex.A/5) on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of 'Family' of late Miss Vasanthi and, therefore, family pension was not payable to her. It is stated by the petitioner that interpretation given by the respondents to the definition of 'Family' is not correct and the petitioner was entitled for pension for the period of service rendered by her daughter i.e. 18 years, 7 months and 22 days. It is submitted that under Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1951'), the expression 'Family' has been defined. It is submitted that except the petitioner, there is no other claimant, nor any claim has been made on behalf of any other person. It is asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 265{b) of the Rules of 1951, it is provided that 'mother' is person entitled to get family pension. The petitioner has challenged the interpretation made by the respondents for rejecting the case of the petitioner by making reliance on Rule 268D of the Rules of 1951 on the ground that Rule 268D cannot curtail the provisions of Rule 260 as to exclude the father and mother from the definition of 'family' and, therefore, the impugned order Annex. 5 is liable to be quashed. It is further challenged by the petitioner that qualifying service for grant of family pension, mentioned in Rule 261 of the Rules of 1951, to be of 20 years, is wholly unreasonable and has no nexus whatsoever for sanctioning family pension to the dependent of the deceased. It is submitted that provisions of 20 years' qualifying service as prescribed under Rule 261 of the Rules of 1951 for payment of family pension to the employees is ultra vires, invalid, unconstitutional, and, therefore, deserves to be declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner was entitled to family pension under the New Family Pension Rules.

(2.) A reply has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3. There is no denial of the facts in regard to the rendering of service' by deceased daughter of the petitioner, it is submitted that under Rule 268D of the Rules of 1951, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. The respondents had taken a defence that the petitioner has not produced any evidence on the record to show that she was solely dependent on the deceased and further that under the provisions of Rule 268D, the petitioner does not fall under the definition of family for grant of pension. It is submitted that Rule 260 does not include the mother in the definition of family but it is submitted that Rule 260 is to be made applicable in the ease of payment of gratuity only. It is admitted that the gratuity had been paid to the petitioner for being included in the definition of family under Rule 260 of the Rules of 1951. According to the respondents Rule 268D excludes all other members as dependent for the purpose of sanction of family pension except wife, husband, minor sons and unmarried daughters and, therefore, as a matter of fact, if a unmarried Government servant unfortunately dies, the parents, brothers or sisters are not. entitled to any family pension.

(3.) CHAPTER XIII deals with the family pension and, it has been provided in Rules 261 that family pension, not exceeding the amount specified in Rule 262 may be granted to the family of an officer who dies, whether while still in service or after retirement after completion of not less than 20 years qualifying service, for a period of ten years. Rule 262 defines family for the above purposes as defined in Rule 260 meaning thereby if an employee has minimum qualifying service of 20 years, in that situation, mother shall also be entitled to receive the family, pension, for being included in the definition of family in Rule 260 read with Rule 263. Rule 265 entitles the widow or husband as the case may be or to the eldest surviving widow to receive the family pension and failing the above, to the unmarried daughter and then eldest widowed daughter and failing all these as provided in Rule 262 (1), the father and the mother. Rule 268 provides that a pension sanctioned will be tenable in addition to any extraordinary pension or gratuity or compensation that may be granted to the members of a Government servant's family under the rules.