Ms. Anshul Kumari vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 4442 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         W.P.(C) No. 5818/2015


%                                                   29th May, 2015
MS. ANSHUL KUMARI                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through        Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate

                          versus

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR            ..... Respondents

Through Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocate for RBI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)CORAM:

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner, who is an unmarried daughter of the deceased

employee of respondent no.1/Reserve Bank of India(RBI), Sh. Birbal Singh,

seeks family pension.

2. The deceased employee Sh. Birbal Singh had retired from the services

of the respondent no.1/RBI way back on 30.10.1998. After Sh. Birbal

Singh's death on 12.04.2002, family pension was first paid to his son Mr.

Ajay Pal till he attained the age of 25 years and thereafter family pension

was paid to the petitioner till she attained the age of 25 years. Thereafter, in

terms of the applicable service regulations of the respondent no.1/RBI,

respondent no.1/RBI stopped paying family pension to the petitioner as

petitioner had crossed the age of 25 years on 04.04.2009.

3. The petitioner to seek relief in this writ petition relies upon the CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972 applicable to the Central Government employees

along with office memorandum issued by the Central Government, and as

per these provisions and regulations, Central Government continues family

pension even if unmarried daughter crosses the age of 25 years.

4. The respondent no.1/RBI, however, has no such service rule and

respondent no.1/RBI as per its service rules is only obliged to pay pension to

the unmarried daughter till the time the unmarried daughter reaches the age

of 25 years.

5. This Court cannot change the service rules of the organisation

inasmuch as, what should be the service rules, is for the employer to decide

and not for this Court to decide.

6. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of the

family pension after her crossing the age of 25 years.

7. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MAY 29, 2015/hkaur