CWPOA/3891/2020 on 30 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.3891 of 2020 Decided on: 30.12.2022 Ridhama & another

…Petitioners. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others … Respondents.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of Annexures A­1 and A­2, i.e. the communication dated 11.09.2017 and 21.11.2017, in terms whereof, the request of the petitioners herein that the family pension of their deceased mother be released in their favour, has been rejected by the employer, on the ground that the widow/widower of the deceased employee is still alive.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:­ The petitioners, incidently one of whom was minor at the time when the petition was filed, have approached this Court, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

seeking direction that the family pension on account of death of their mother late Smt. Shobha Rani, who happened to be an employee of the respondent­Board, be ordered to be released in their favour by quashing Annexures A­1 and A­2 as the husband of the deceased­ employee, i.e. their father was living separately at Dharamshala and working in a Hotel and during the lifetime of their mother, he neither visited their house, nor he was looked after either his wife or children, i.e. the present petitioners. It was further the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.2 met with a serious accident in the year 2016 and he remained hospitalized, yet his father never visited him nor he ever came to village of the petitioners during the lifetime of their mother.

3. The petition is resisted by the respondent­Board, inter alia, on the ground that in terms of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the family pension is first payable to the spouse of deceased employee and in the event of the spouse not being available, only then the children are entitled to the same. As per respondent­Board, as the deceased was survived by her husband Rakesh Kumar, therefore, the family pension was correctly ordered to be released in favour of Rakesh Kumar. Though, said Rakesh Kumar was not impleaded as a party respondent by the petitioners, however, he subsequently moved an application for his impleadment and the application was allowed by impleading Rakesh Kumar as a party respondent.

4. Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for respondent Rakesh Kumar has also submitted that in terms of the provisions of Rule 54 (6) (i) of CCS Pension Rules, it is the widow or widower, who is first entitled for pension and as it was not the case of the petitioners that their father had remarried, therefore, he was entitled to receive the family pension. Mr. Rajput further submitted that the respondent Rakesh Kumar remained with his wife till her last time and took proper care of her and he otherwise also has performed his duties both as a father as also as a husband and he would continue to perform his duties towards his children in future also. However, he submitted that as the foundation of the petition is completely ill­ founded, therefore, present petition be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully gone through the pleadings as also the relevant provisions of CCS Pension Rules, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is completely misconceived.

6. The private respondent happens to be the father of the petitioners and husband of late employee of the respondent­Board. The factum of the private respondent being father of the petitioners is evident from the memo of parties itself, wherein both the petitioners have depicted themselves to be the children of the private respondent.

7. Rule 54 (6) of the CCS Pension Rules, inter alia, provides that in terms of Clause­1 thereof, family pension is first payable to the widow or widower as the case may be, upto the date of death or remarriage and in the event of the same being payable to an unmarried son, the same is payable till he attains the age of twenty­ five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest and in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she gets married or until she starts earning her livelihood whichever is earlier. However, the provision does not provides that the children would be simultaneously eligible to get the family pension pro rata alongwith surviving widow or widower. When we apply the provisions of said Rules to be the facts of this case, the only inference which can be drawn is this that till the husband of the deceased employee is eligible to receive family pension, the family pension has to be paid to the husband and in case he incurs any disqualification which renders him ineligible to receive the family pension, then obviously the right of the children will accrue to receive the family pension as per CCS Pension Rules.

8. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father is not taking care of the children. Be that as it may, the observations which have been made by this Court are only relatable to the factual matrix involved herein and this does not precludes the children to seek appropriate remedy vis­a­vis their maintenance etc. against their father as per law.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge December 30, 2022 (Rishi)