1995 INSC 1088
                                         Haryana State Electricity Board

                                                           Vs

                                                     Surasti Devi

                                         Civil Appeal No. 11937 of 1995

                                     (K. Ramaswamy, K. S. Paripoornan JJ)

                                                      04.12.1995

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arise from the judgment and decree dated 23-3-1995 made in RSA
No. 618 of 1995 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

3. The only question is whether the mother of the deceased employee is entitled to the family
pension. The High Court in its judgment had applied Rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rule
and held that the mother is also a dependant. 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 Pension Scheme was brought into force by statutory rules
which was amended w.e.f. 15-5-1977. 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 1-7-
1964 to a Punjab Government employee who was in service on 30-6-1964 and came to be governed
by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for the government employees. Rule 6.17(3)
defines 'family' for the purpose for the government employee. Rule 6.17(3) defines 'family' for the
purpose of this 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 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 Services
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 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(1) enumerates that a family pensions will take effect from the day following
the death of the government employee or from such other date as the competent authority may
decide and a family pension will ordinarily be tenable in the case of a widow or mother until death
or remarriage, whichever occurs earlier. In other respects, we are not concerned with clause (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 'special' circumstances, the normal enumeration in Chapter VI gets
attracted. In consequence, the mother having been excluded from the persons eligible for family
pension according to Chapter VI, she becomes ineligible for family pension.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in Bhagwanti v.
Union of India. In that case, the retired employee had married after retirement and he had also
minor children from such wedlock. 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 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 who are the
dependents under the Family Pension Scheme. The impugned decision of the Punjab and Haryana
high Court following the above ratio is not correct.

5. It is stated across the Bar that the deceased is entitled to other benefits, viz., GPF, 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 in that behalf is confirmed. The State is directed to pay the entire amounts in that
behalf within six months from the date of the receipt of this order.

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