Punjab-Haryana High Court
Soma Rani vs Punjab State Powercom Corp Ltd & ... on 28 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061520
CWP-27225-2015 (O&M) - 1- 2023:PHHC:061520
216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-27225-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 28.04.2023
SOMA RANI THROUGH LR ........Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB STATE POWERCOM CORP LTD & ORS
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
CM-3609-CWP-2023
This application has been filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section
151 CPC for impleading Vijay Kumar, son of Late Smt. Soma Rani as a party
petitioner No.1.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Vijay
Kumar, son of late Smt. Soma Rani, is impleaded as a party petitioner No.1.
CWP-27225-2015
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate order, directions and
especially writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release
the pension in favour of the petitioner-mother on account of death of her son-
late Sh. Om Parkash and with further prayer of quashing the impugned order
dated 07.05.2015 (Annexure P-5).
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061520
CWP-27225-2015 (O&M) - 2- 2023:PHHC:061520
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the
petitioner was not mentioned in the HR data of Sh. Om Parkash and it is not
proved that she is dependent upon him and therefore the present petition has
been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of
the present petition, the petitioner-Soma Rani died on 19.01.2020 and she was
of the age of more than 80 years and she was the mother of one deceased
namely Sh. Om Parkash who was working in the respondent-department and
he retired on 30.06.2012 from Sub Division, Faridkot. The wife of the
aforesaid Om Parkash namely Smt. Kanta Rani had already died on
23.10.2006. Unfortunately, on 28.05.2014 even son of the petitioner, Om
Parkash, also died leaving behind his two sons namely Dheeraj Kumar and
Rajan Kumar who were already more than 25 years of age at that point of
time. He submitted that therefore the only surviving LR for the purpose of
receiving of the pension in view of Rule 6.17 Punjab Civil Services Rules,
Vol.II, was the mother of the deceased Om Parkash, but family pension to the
petitioner has been denied on the ground that it was not found that the
petitioner is dependent upon the aforesaid Om Parkash which is factually
incorrect. He further submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the grant of
family pension under the statutory rules comprised in Rule 6.17 Volume-II
which have been adopted by the respondent-Corporation and therefore under
the Statutory Rules, the petitioner was entitled for grant of family pension and
even otherwise also so far as the objection of the respondent-Corporation as to
whether the petitioner was dependent upon her son or not, was also tried to
resolve when the order was passed by this Court on 22.08.2019 whereby the
learned counsel for the respondent stated that an inquiry has to be conducted
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061520
CWP-27225-2015 (O&M) - 3- 2023:PHHC:061520
to see as to whether the petitioner is actually dependent upon aforesaid Om
Parkash or not and was filed an affidavit in this regard. He submitted that
thereafter an inquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner who
was an old lady was totally dependent upon aforesaoid Om Parkash. He
further submitted that even despite the fact that the aforesaid order was passed
by this Court on 22.08.2019 but no affidavit has been filed by the respondent-
Corporation till date and therefore, in view of the aforesaid statutory
provisions the petitioner is entitled for grant of family pension. He further
submitted that with regard to the definition of family which is contained in
Rule 6.17(3),Volume-II of Punjab Civil Services Rules, earlier the parents
were not included in the family but the same was challenged in judgment of
this Court in State of Punjab and another Vs. Kharak Singh Kang and
another 1998 (1) RSJ 412 wherein it was held that the family, if it excludes
the parents would be ultra vires and parents are to be included in the definition
of the family for grant of family pension. Thereafter now even as per Rule
6.17(3) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II includes the parents and
therefore the petitioner was also entitled for grant of family pension from the
date of the death of the son of the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted on a
special query being raised to him as to whether an inquiry was conducted in
pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 22.08.2019 in which he
submitted, on instructions, that inquiry was conducted and it was found that
the petitioner was dependent upon the aforesaid Om Parkash. However, no
affidavit in this regard has been filed so far.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061520
CWP-27225-2015 (O&M) - 4- 2023:PHHC:061520
6. The son of the petitioner was working in the respondent-Corporation
and retired from the same. The wife of Om Parkash had already died way back
in the year 2006. The aforesaid Om Parkash had two sons at the time of his
death and at that point of time they were more than 25 years of age. The
petitioner was the mother of Om Parkash.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even Soma Rani,
petitioner has already died and her son Vijay Kumar and two sons of the
aforesaid Om Parkash have already been impleaded as party in the present
case and therefore, so far as the rights which accrued to the aforesaid Soma
Rani, the same are now to be disbursed to the legal heirs of Soma Rani .
Therefore, first of all the question before this Court for adjudication in the
present case is as to whether the petitioner No.1 Soma Rani (since deceased)
was entitled for the grant of family pension or not. The relevant portion of
Rule 6.17(3) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II pertaining to the
definition of family is reproduced as under:-
(3) "Family" for purposes of this Scheme will include the
following 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, such separation not
being granted on the ground of adultery and the person
surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery;
(c) sons upto the age of twenty-five years;
(d) daughters upto the age of twenty-five years irrespective of
their marriage but unmarried daughters shall be included in
the family irrespective of their age; and
(e) parents who were wholly dependent on the Government
employee, when he/she was alive provided the deceased
employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child.
Note 1.- (c) and (d) will include children adopted legally before
retirement
Note 2.- Marriage after retirement shall be recognised for
purposes of this Scheme.
8. A perusal of the aforesaid would show that the parents are now included
in the definition of family. In the present case Soma Rani was a widow and
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061520
CWP-27225-2015 (O&M) - 5- 2023:PHHC:061520
she (being mother) Dheeraj Kumar (son) and Rajan Kumar (son) were the
LR's of deceased-Om Parkash. Even otherwise also in view of the Division
Bench judgment of this Court, the parents cannot be excluded from the
definition of the family. Therefore petitioner No.1 Soma Rani was entitled for
the grant of family pension till her death and now LRs of the aforesaid Soma
Rani will be entitled for the same. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for petitioner pointed out that there are other brothers also of aforesaid
Om Parkash. Therefore, this Court would not go into the dispute for
adjudicating that who is entitled for the grant of benefits which are accrued to
aforesaid Soma Rani and for that purpose the legal heirs of Soma Rani may get
a necessary certificate from the appropriate Court or authority and submit to
the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of disbursement.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The order dated
07.05.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2-The Chief Account
Officer, Pension Wing, PSPCL, Patiala, is hereby set aside. It is held that
Soma Rani was entitled for the grant of family pension on the date of death of
her son till she died and thereafter her LRs will be entitled for disbursement of
the same, subject to the conditions that LRs will give the necessary certificate
from the concerned authority/Court to the respondent-Corporation and in case
the said certificate is supplied to the respondent-Corporation, then the same
shall be disbursed within next 4 months.
28.04.2023 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
neelam JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061520
5 of 5
