HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusSURASTI DEVI

             HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD                                  A
                            v.
                      SURASTI DEVI

                           DECEMBER 4, 1995

         [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]                              B

      Seivice Law :

      Punjab Civil Seivices Rules (Vol. II)

       Rules 6, 17, 8, 35-f"amily Pension-Entitlement-Mother of a c
deceased employee-Held, Family Pension Scheme being covered by Chapter
VJ, and mother having been excluded from persons eligible,· she becomes
ineligible for family pension-"4pplication of r.8.35, in Chapter VIII, defining
mother also as one of persons eligible for family pension, would be in relation
to death due to wounds or other extra ordinary pensions.                        D
      The present appeal was filed by the Haryana Electricity Board
against the judgment of the High Court holding that in view of Rule 8.35
of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the respondent, mother of the deceased
employee, was entitled to family pension.
                                                                               E
      Allowing the appeal of the State Government in part, this Court

      HELD : 1.1. Family Pension Scheme is covered by Chapter VI of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. In view of the fact that the death of
the employee is not covered by Chapter VIII of the Rules, coming under
special circumstances, the normal enumeration in Chapter VI gets at·           F
tracted. In consequence, the mother having been excluded from the per·
sons eligible for family pension according to Chapter VI of the Rules, she
becomes ineligible for family pension. [167-B, El

      1.2. It is true that Rule 8.35 of the Rules defines mother also as one
of the persons eligible for family pension. But it will be in relation to the G
death due to wounds or other extra ordinary pension. The extent of the
applicability of the rules in Chapter VIII has been enumerated to different
persons and Rule 8.35 enumerates that a family pension will take effect
from the day following the death of the Government employee or from such
date as the competent authority may decide and a family pension will H
                                      165
    166                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S,C.R.

A   accordingly be tenable, in the case of a widow or mother until death or
    re-marriage wljichever occurs earlier. (167-C]

            13. However, mother is certainly entitled to other claims whatever
    the deceased would have been entitled to, viz. G.P,F,, leave encashments
    etc. and the decree of the Courts below in that behalf is confirmed, (168-A]
B
            Smt. Bhagwanti v. Union of India, [1989] 4 SCC 397, Inapplicable •

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11937 of
    1995.

C        From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.95 of the Punjab in R.S.A.
    No. 618/1995.

             K.K. Jain, Pramod Dayal, Ms. Ayesha Khatri and Ajay K. Jain, for
    the Appellant.

D            A.O. Sikri, L.D. Adhiakha and Ms. Pipu Adhlakha for the Respon-
    dents.

             The following Order of the Court was delivered :

             Leave granted.
E
         This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree
    dated March 23, 1995 made in RSA No. 618/95 by the High Court of
    Punjab and Haryana.

             The only question is whether the mother of the deceased employee
F is entitled to the family pension. The High Court in its judgment had
  applied rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and held that the
  mother is also a dependent. Consequently, she is entitled to the family
  pension. The only question, therefore, is whether Rule 8. 35 is applicable
  to the family pension and whether the mother is dependent. The Family
G Pension Scheme was brought into force by statutory rules which was
  amended w.e.f. May 15, 1977. It would indicate that the provisions of these
  rules shall apply to a regular employee of the Punjab Government in a
  pensionable establishment on or after 1st July, 1964 to a Punjab Govern-
  ment employee who was in service on June 30, 1964 and came to be
H governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for the Govern-
                   H.S.E. BOARD v. SURASTI DEVI                      167

ment employees. Rule 6.17 [3] defines "family'' for the purpose of this A
Scheme to include the relatives of the Govermnent 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 husba!ld;
[c] minor sons; and [d] umnarried daughters below the age of of 21 years.
Note 1 includes children adopted legally before retirement. Note 2 states B
that a marriage after retirement will not be recognised for purpose of this
Scheme. A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the Family Pension
Scheme is covered by Chapter VI of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.
II. The enumerated persons are eligible to get family pension according to
the family pension scheme. It is true that Rule 8.35 defines 'mother' also C
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. The extent of
the applicability of these rules in Chapter VIII has been enumerated to
different persons and Rule 8.35 [l] enumerates that a family pension will
take effect from the day following the death of the Govermnent employee
or from such other date as the competent authority may decide and a D
family pension will ordinarily be tenable. In the case of a widow or mother
until death or re- marriage, whichever occurs earlier. In other respects, we
are not concerned wi~h clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv), as the case may be. In
view of the fact that the death of the respondent is not covered by Chapter
VIII, coming under 11 special11 circumstances, the normal enumeration in E
Chapter VI gets attracted. In consequence, the mother having been ex-
cluded from the persons eligible for family pension according to Chapter
VI, she becomes ineligible for family pension.                  ·

       Learned counsel for the respondent sought to rely on the judgment F
of this Court in Smt. Bhagwanti v. Union of India [(1989) 4 SCC 397. In
that case, the retired employee had married after retirement and he had
also minor children from such wed-lock. Since the rules had excluded the
wife who contracted the marriage after retirement and begetting the
children, this Court declared such a restriction being ultra vires as the G
Government employee would be entitled to the pension in his own right
which he had earned during his service with the Government. The ratio
therein has no application to the facts of this case where the Rules made
under Article 309 of the Constitution specify as to are the dependents
under the Family Pension Scheme. The impugned decision of Punjab &
Haryana High Court following the above ratio is not correct.              H
    168                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A       It is stated across the Bar that the deceased is entitled to other
  benefits, viz., G.P.F., leave encashment etc., which were granted by the trial
  Court. In that behalf, the mother is certainly entitled to whatever claims
  the deceased would have been entitled. Therefore, the decree of the courts
  below io that behalf is confirmed. The State is directed to pay the entire
B amounts io that behalf within six months from the date of the receipt of
  this order.

           The appeal is accordiogly allowed only to the above extent. No. costs.

    R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.