Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Yadav And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 October, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8183 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 12, 2009
Neeraj Yadav and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Jitender Bedwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition for grant of compassionate financial assistance on account of death of husband of petitioner No.1 in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006 (for short, "the Rules").
The husband of petitioner No.1 was selected for appointment as Inspector in Harayana Police on 18.9.2008. He was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8183 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
sent for medical examination and upon being found medically fit, he was offered appointment on 7.10.2008. He accordingly joined the service on the same day. He suddenly died on 23.3.2009 while in service. The petitioners applied for monthly financial assistance as admissible under the Rules on 8.4.2009. Their claim has been rejected on the ground that husband of petitioner No.1 has not completed one year continuous service and so would not be entitled to monthly financial assistance admissible under the Rules.
In the reply filed in response to notice, the action is defended on the same ground that the deceased husband of petitioner No.1 had less than one year service so the petitioners can not be provided compassionate financial assistance in terms of Para 3 of the Rules. Reference is then made to Para 3, which lays down the eligibility to receive financial assistance. Accordingly, it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable.
It is noticed that having been recommended for appointment on 18.9.2008, the petitioner was medically examined on 7.10.2008 and on the same date he joined the service. He died on 21.3.2009 and, thus, the petitioners are denied the compassionate assistance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to the grant of family pension and the condition of completing one year continuous service can not be pressed in view of Rule 4 of Family Pension Rules. The counsel would refer to note under the Rules, as per which Family Pension can be granted before completion of one year continuous service, if the Government employee concerned immediately prior to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8183 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:
recruitment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit for the Government service. In support, he has also drawn my attention to the case of Smt.Savitri Devi Vs. the State of Haryana and others, 1996 (2) RSJ 854. The Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that even if the deceased government employee does not complete one year of continuous service, his dependent would nevertheless be entitled to the grant of family pension provided the deceased was medically examined and found fit and medical certificate of fitness was produced before entering into Government service. The right of the petitioner to make a claim for family pension, thus, is apparently covered by the ratio of law laid down in Smt.Savitri Devi's case (supra). Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 reads as under:-
"4. This scheme is administered as below:-
(i) The family pension is admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement on or after the 1st July, 1964, if at the time of death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid retiring or superannuation pension. The Family Pension will not be admissible in case of death after retirement if the retired employee at the time of death was in receipt of gratuity only. In case of death while in service a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break.
Note 1:- The term one year continuous service used in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8183 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:
para-4(i) above is inclusive of permanent/temporary service in a pensionable establishment but does not include periods of extraordinary leaves, boy service and suspension period unless that is regularized by the competent authority or before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government employee concerned immediately prior to his recruitment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate Medical Authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service.
Perusal of the above note would clearly spell that if an employee is medically examined by Medical authority and declared medically fit then the condition of one year continuous service to become entitle to family pension does not apply."
The note under the Rule would clearly show that exception appears to have been carved out in those cases to grant family pension even before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government employee concerned had been examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by the authority for Government service. The mandate of this Rule was observed as under by the Division Bench in the case of Smt.Savitri Devi (supra):-
"3. The mandate of the aforementioned provision appears to be that in case the Government servant at the time of entry into service produces a Medical Certificate of Fitness, the family would be entitled to Family Pension even if he dies within less than one year. Concededly, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8183 OF 2009 :{ 5 }:
husband of the petitioner did submit the Medical Certificate of Fitness, cop of Annexure P1.
4. The only interpretation which can be placed upon the Scheme as reproduced above is that even if the deceased Government employee does not complete one year of continuous service, his dependents would nevertheless be entitled to the grant of family pension provided the deceased was medically examined and found fit and a Medical Certificate of Fitness is produced before entry into Government Service from a competent Medical Officer. The completion of one year continuous service is, therefore, wholly irrelevant in view of the phraseology of the Family pension Scheme."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to another Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sharmila Devi Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, 2002 (4) SCT 178. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court so far as eligibility of completing qualifying service of one year for grant of family pension is concerned. It is held that even if the deceased Government employee does not complete one year continuous service, his dependent would still be entitled to grant of family pension provided he was found medically fit at the time of appointment. The Rule does not envisage any such condition of one year qualifying service. While taking this view, the ratio laid down in Savitri Devi's case (supra) has been followed. Taking the similar view, Civil Writ Petition No.3515 of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8183 OF 2009 :{ 6 }:
2009 Mahender Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and others), was allowed by this Court on 5.10.2009.
Following the ratio laid down in the above-noted cases, it is held that the petitioners would be entitled to the grant of family pension even when husband of petitioner No.1 had not completed one year continuous service as prior to his joining, her husband had appeared for medical examination and had been offered appointment only on having been found fit. Order Annexure P-2 would show that the petitioner was appointed after having been declared medically fit. Once the petitioners are held entitled to grant of family pension, they would be eligible for grant of compassionate financial assistance in terms of the Rules as they would be eligible under Rule 3, which reads as under:-
"Eligibility. 3. The eligibility to receive financial assistance, these rules shall be as per the provision in pension/family pension scheme 1964."
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Direction is issued to the respondent-State to grant compassionate financial assistance to the petitioners under the Rules. Needless to mention that the petitioners would also be entitled to the family pension though in terms of the Rules.
October 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi JUDGE
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8183 OF 2009 :{ 7 }: