Punjab and Haryana High Court declares 'unmarried' expression invalid in family pension scheme

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 14

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared invalid the expression “unmarried” in the family pension scheme of 1964 to the extent that it restricted the benefit to the parents of a single officer. The Bench asserted it was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, being arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and unfair.

The Bench was hearing a petition by a woman, claiming that she was equally entitled to monthly financial assistance and pension upon her son’s death as she was dependent on him. But the same was denied since she did not fall within the definition of ‘family’ as her son was married.

She claimed that expression “unmarried” in sub clause (f) of Clause 4 (ii) of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, should be declared ultra vires as the dependent parents could not be deprived of their valuable right to pension and financial assistance just because their son/daughter was married at the time of death.

Taking up the petition against the State of Haryana and other respondents, the Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted the impugned clause made it clear that the parents were excluded from the definition of ‘family’ no sooner the child got married. The rule did not contemplate different situations which might arise on account of son/daughter-employee’s death.

It may entail sets of permutations and combinations, such as passing away together of both son and daughter-in-law having no child, or the daughter-in-law’s marriage as soon as her husband passed away. In all, the Bench listed seven eventualities.

The Bench added legislature while enacting the impugned clause, made applicable to the Haryana Financial Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, did not contemplate these situations which might arise post death of an employee.

“There seems no intelligible differentia and reasonable rationale to the object of excluding the dependent parents from consideration…. The impugned clause does not seem to achieve the real intent of the rules i.e. tiding off the family from penury. It further does not pass through the test of reasonableness. It is the outcome of non-consideration of the cited permutation and combinations, which have been well considered while promulgating the 2019 Rules,” the Bench observed.

It added the state would always be at liberty to take curative steps to remove the defect pointed out by courts. The Bench also held the petitioner disentitled to even a minuscule of financial assistant extended to the widow and children. It observed her husband and other two sons were alive and earning well. Moreover, she had already disowned her now-deceased son and daughter-in-law.

Arbitrary clause

As per impugned clause, no sooner a child gets married, parents are excluded from the definition of ‘family’. The rule does not contemplate situations which, regarding parents, may arise on the death of their son/daughter-employee’. — Division bench