Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.56 seconds)Ram Sarup And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 14 October, 1986
In case Ram Sarup and another v. State of Punjab and another (supra), Ram Sarup and Shiv Parshad were brothers of Hans Raj who was employed as Mo-harrir in the Municipal Committee, Kharar. On his death, they applied to the Municipal Committee for payment of provident fund, gratuity, ex gratia amount as well as salary of Hans Raj deceased. They had obtained succession certificate. They again approached the Municipal Committee with a representation that provident fund, gratuity, ex gratia and salary of Hans Raj deceased be disbursed to them. The Municipal Committee did not pay them the amount of provident fund, gratuity etc.
Jyotiben Natvarlal Bhatt And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 2 May, 1998
In Jyotiben Natvarlal Bhatt and another v. State of Gujarat and others (supra), one Bipinbhai Joshi had died. Jyotiben Natvarlal Bhatt and another are his wife and minor daughter. He had executed a Will dated 14.7.1991, whereby the amount of provident fund, gratuity, amount of group insurance and the amount of family pension were bequeathed to his parents. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that "the deceased employee had no right to bequeath family pension as family pension did not form part of his estate. Family, for the purpose qf family pension will include the following relatives of the Government servant (a) wife, in the case of male Government servant; (b) Husband, in the case of a female Government servant; (c) Minor sons; and (d) Unmarried or minor daughters. As per the said definition, the petitioners who are the wife as well as the minor daughters of the deceased are included as the members of the family and, therefore, they are th6 persons entitled to claim family pension."
State Of Punjab And Anr. vs Kharak Singh Kang And Anr. on 20 January, 1998
10. The learned Counsel drew my attention to State of Punjab and another v. Kharak Singh Kang and another, 1998 (1) R.S.J. 412, where a Division Bench of this court held "that parents of the deceased employee cannot be excluded from the definition of family'. They cannot be denied the benefit of family pension."
State Of H.P. And Anr. vs Kedar Nath Sood And Anr. on 8 January, 1998
He drew my attention to State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Kedar Nath Sood and another, JT 1998 (9) SC 157, where it was held that "the father was not entitled to family pension but where the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Government to pay a sum of Rs. 10,0007- as ex gratia to the father in addition to the payments already made, because he was a man of 80 years of age, who had lost his young spn and there was nobody to look after him and no one was entitled to the pension under Rule 54(14)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Government to consider the amendment of the Rule so as to include "father" in the definition of 'family' for the purpose of family pension, where he is going unprovided for and thew is nobody entitled to pension.
Smt. Violet Issac And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 February, 1991
15. On the strength of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Violet Issaac and others (supra), the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the widow of the deceased alone was entitled to G.P.F., Gratuity etc., as she alone fulfils the definition of'family' for the purpose of Family Pension Scheme.
Haryana State Electricity Board vs Surasti Devi on 4 December, 1995
As regards other benefits viz. G.P.F., leave encashment etc. she is entitled to. In support of this submission, he (learned Counsel for the petitioner) drew my attention to Haryana State Electricity Board v. Surasti Devi, JT 1995 (9) S.C. 631, where the mother of the deceased employee had claimed family pension. The High Court had applied rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and held that the mother was also a dependent and was entitled to the family pension. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mother was not entitled to family pension as she had been excluded from the persons eligible for family pension. Rule 6.17(3) defines "family" for the purpose of Family Pension Scheme to include the relatives of the Government employee - (a) wife, in the case of a male Government employee and husband, in the case of a female Government employee; (b) a judicially separated wife or husband; (c) minor sons; and (d) unmarried daughters below the age of 21 years. Note 1 includes children adopted legally before retirement. Note 2 states that marriage after retirement will not be recognised for purpose of this scheme. Family Pension Scheme is covered by Chapter VI of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. The enumerated persons are eligible to get family pension according to the family pension scheme. Rule 8.35 defines 'mother' also as one of the persons eligible for family pension. But it will be in relation to the death due to wounds or other extraordinary pensions. It was submitted that the mother was entitled to other benefits viz. G.P.F., leave encashment etc. Suffice it to say, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave no finding that the mother was entitled to the benefits viz. G.P.F., leave encashment etc. In para 5 of the report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as fol-lows:-
1