The court emphasised that eligibility under the 2006 Rules is governed by the Family Pension Scheme, 1964
In a significant ruling on compassionate financial assistance for families of deceased government employees, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the appeal of the mother of a Sanskrit teacher who died in harness in 2011, and directed Haryana to release benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006.
Justice Pankaj Jain, while pronouncing the judgment on December 22 in RSA-4194-2017, overturned the decisions of the trial court and the lower appellate court that had dismissed Kalawati’s suit on grounds of suppression of facts and lack of dependency.
Kalawati’s son, Hari Har Mohan, an unmarried Sanskrit teacher posted at Government Middle School, Sanghore, Kurukshetra, died on October 11, 2011, while drawing a salary of Rs 38,570. She claimed to be wholly dependent on him and sought financial assistance equivalent to his last drawn salary until the date of his superannuation, followed by a family pension.
The Haryana Government contested the claim, pointing out that Kalawati’s husband, Sat Narain Shastri, a retired government employee, was receiving a monthly pension of Rs 15,475 and had nominated her for family pension after his death. The lower courts held that this made her ineligible, as she could not be considered wholly dependent on her deceased son, and also criticised her for not disclosing her husband’s pension in the plaint.
Justice Jain, however, held that the lower courts erred in their approach. He observed: “It stands proved that the husband of the plaintiff is earning a pension as a retired Government employee. Merely for the reason that she failed to disclose the fact qua her husband earning pension would not disentitle her from maintaining her claim. Admittedly, she has no independent source of income.”
The court emphasised that eligibility under the 2006 Rules is governed by the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, which expressly includes parents of an unmarried deceased employee in the definition of “family”. Rule 3 of the 2006 Rules states: “The eligibility to receive financial assistance under these rules shall be as per the provision in the pension/family pension scheme, 1964.”
Relying on a division bench judgment in Kartar Kaur and anr vs Union of India and ors (2011), the court noted that denying family pension to a mother simply because her husband receives pension is discriminatory.
Justice Jain quoted the earlier ruling: “The husband of the petitioner is an Ex-serviceman who is getting a meagre amount of pension as a matter of right. His wife can not be denied the benefit of an ordinary family pension… The petitioner/mother has no other source of income, and her claim for pension can not be rejected on the ground that the pension of her husband exceeds the mean limit fixed by the Government.”
“Merely for the reason she has been nominated by her husband to receive family pension in the event of his death would not disentitle her from claiming financial benefits under 2006 Rules qua death of her unmarried son,” Justice Jain concluded.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier judgments, and directed the Haryana Government to pay arrears with 6 per cent interest from the date of accrual. The court said if payment is delayed beyond three months from the judgment, interest will rise to 9 per cent per annum.