Holding

A widowed sister is included in the definition of ‘family’ under the 1960 Punjab Civil Services Rules and may claim family pension, but entitlement is contingent upon proving no nomination and dependency on the deceased.

Summary

The respondent, a widowed sister of a deceased employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board, filed a suit for a mandatory injunction to obtain family pension, GPF, gratuity and other benefits. The trial court decreed in her favour and the High Court affirmed, holding that a widowed sister is a member of the deceased's family under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1960. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Explanation to Rule 6.16‑D(1) includes a widowed sister in the definition of "family", but clarified that entitlement to family pension also requires proof that no nomination was made in favour of another person and that the sister was dependent on the deceased at the time of death. The Court set aside the decree insofar as it directed payment of family pension and remitted the matter to the trial court to determine the dependency issue. The appeal was allowed in part, with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a widowed sister qualifies as a member of the family under the Explanation to Rule 6.16‑D(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1960.
Whether the widowed sister is entitled to family pension when the rules require proof of no nomination and of dependency on the deceased employee.
Whether the newer pension rules of 1964, which limit family to spouse and children, apply to the deceased who did not opt for that scheme.

Subjects

family pensionwidowed sisterdependencyPension RulesPunjab Civil Services Rulesnominationentitlement

Judgment

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. A
v.
RAM RAKHI

JULY 28, 2000

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.) B

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, 1960 Edn., Rule 6.16-D(l) Expla-
nation and Rule 6.16-B(l)(a).

Family Pension-Widowed sister-Entitlement to-Held : Explanation
to R.6. 16-D( 1) included widowed sister-Hence, she is entitled to claim family
c
pension.

Family Pension-Widowed sister-Entitlement to-Eligibility condi-
tions:__Held : Widowed sister must establish that there is no nomination in
respect of any other person and that she is dependent on the deceased D
employee in order to claim family pension. Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II,
1960 Edn., Rule 6.16-D( I) Explanation.

Words and Phrases :

"Family"-Meaning of-In the context of Explanation to Rule 6.16-
E
D(l) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, 1960 Edn.

The respondent was the widowed sister of one D, who was working
in the appellant's establishment at the time of his death. The respondent
filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction to the appellant to pay family
pension. The trial Court decreed the suit and the High Court, in second F
appeal, held that the widowed sister was a member of the family of the
deceased and, therefore, entitled to family pension. Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal in part, this Court

HELD : 1. Explanation to Rule 6.16-D(l) of the Punjab Civil G
Services Rules, Vol. II, 1960 Edn. defines a Family' which includes a
widowed sister. Therefore, a widowed sister does become a member of the
family of the deceased employee who could claim family pension under
the Rules. [3-E]

Jasohdhan Devi v. State of Punjab, (1989) 6 SLR 664, referred to. H
I
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A 2. However, in order to become entitled to claim family pension, the
conditions specified in Chapter VI, sub-heading : 'Family Pensions', have
to be fulfilled. The widowed sister must establish that there was no
nomination in respect of any other person and that she was dependent on
the deceased employee at the time of his death. The matter is remitted to
the trial Court to determine the question as to whether the respondent was
B
dependent on the deceased employee. [3-G, 4-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4278 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.97 of the Punjab and Haryana _ '·
C High Court in R.S.A. No. 937 of 1997.

Harinder Mohan Singh, A.P. Chhabra and M.S. Bakshi for the Appel-
lants.

S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga and Ms. Sureshta Bagga for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.

Respondent filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction to the appellants
to sanction and pay family pension, G.P.F., Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity,
E
ex-gratia grant and leave encashment etc. Her case is that she is the widowed
sister of Shri Dalip Chand, who was working as a Lineman in the appellant's
establishment at the time of his death. The suit was resisted by the appellant
and it is contended that deceased Dalip Chand did not nominate any person
to be paid the family pension or G.P.F. nor any member of his family was
F dependent on Dalip Chand for payment of family pension. The trial Court
decreed the suit in respect of various claims made by the respondent. The
matter was carried in appeal unsuccessfully. In the second appeal in the High
Court it was noticed that the matter is covered by the decision in Jasohdhan
Devi v. State of Punjab and Anr, (1989) 6 S.L.R. 664 and therefore no
G interference is called for as the widowed sister is recognized as member of
the family entitled to family pension.

The contention put forth before this Court is that the respondent is not
a member of the family as per the new pension rules which came into force
in 1964 under which only spouse and children of the deceased employee will
H constitute members of the family. In
addition it is contended that even if the
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. RAM RAKHI [RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 3

respondent is a member of the family under the old rules, in which an A
unmarried widowed sister is included in the definition of family, still she has
to fulfil other conditions arising under the other relevant provisions of the
Rules and those conditions having not been fulfilled the Courts below were
not justified in passing the decree for grant of family pension. The learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that the view taken by the Courts below
B
is absolutely justified and no interference is called for.

Though three claims had been made by the respondent, the learned

-· counsel for the appellant confined his case only to one aspect of the matter
namely, grant of family pension and in regard to other two aspects did not
challenge the decree passed by 'the Courts below as affirmed by the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana. Therefore, we will rivet our attention only to the question
C

of grant of family pension to the respondent.

The fact that respondent is a widowed sister of the deceased employee
of the appellant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he did not exercise
his option to be governed by the Pension Scheme 1964 and therefore the D
restricted definition given to the expression 'Family' confining only to spouses,
sons and unmarried daughters has no application. On the other hand, the
relevant rules in Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II 1960 Ed. would be appli-
cable wherein in Rule 6.16- D (1) an explanation is added to define as to what
family is and that definition adopts the definition set out in Rule 6.16-B (l)(a) E
except certain persons and that rule clearly includes a widowed sister. Therefore
in the absence of any option having been exercised by the deceased employee
to adopt new Rules, old Rules govern him as rightly held by the High Court
following the decision in Jasodhan Devi v. Stale of Punjab (supra), a widowed
sister does become a member of the family who could claim pension under
those Rules. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the view taken by F
the Courts below is absolutely justified and calls for no interference.

However, the matter does not rest at what we have stated so far. In order
to become entitled to claim family pension, the conditions specified in Chapter
... VI, sub-heading D:'Family Pensions', have to be fulfilled. Clause (a) of Rule
G
6.16-D provides that no pension is payable without production of any proof that
such person was dependent on the deceased officer for support in respect of
those falling within sub-rule (4)(b). Sub-rule (4) applies to two categories of
the members of the family. The first category consists of spouses and children.
The second category coming under clause (b) are all other relatives of the
deceased such as parents and siblings. So far as rel&ti ves other than spouse and H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A children are concerned there is a condition that they are dependents on the
deceased employee for support has to be established by adducing reasonable
proof to claim pension. Further the scheme of grant of pension is by way of
exclusion of a relative mentioned in the earlier category with reference to the
one mentioned in the latter category. In the first place it is to be established
that there was no nomination in respect of any one of them and that such person
B
was a dependent of the deceased employee at the time of the death. In the
absence of such proof family pension cannot be granted. Indeed whether a
widowed sister, as in the present case, has her own source of income or was
not a dependent upon the deceased is a matter to be established by adducing
appropriate proof. However, none of the Courts have adverted their attention
c to this aspect of the matter, though the defence raised by the appellants has
been noticed. Thus we have no option but to set aside the decree passed by
the trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court in
second appeal to the extent indicated above in so far it relates to direction for
payment of family pension.
D This appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above setting aside
the decree in so far as it relates to the direction to grant of family pension and
,.
in other respects remains undisturbed and the ~alter is remitted to the trial
Court for fresh consideration on the question as to whether the respondent is
dependent of the deceased employee so as to claim pension in terms of the rules
E to which we have adverted to. Appeal is allowed in part. No costs.

v.s.s. Appeal partly allowed.