CWPOA/3891/2020 of Ridham Sharma Vs HPSEB LTD 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 ElectricityBoard 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 soughtquashing of Annexures A-1 and A-2, i.e. the communication dated11.09.2017 and 21.11.2017, in terms whereof, the request of thepetitioners herein that the family pension of their deceased motherbe released in their favour, has been rejected by the employer, onthe ground that the widow/widower of the deceased employee is stillalive.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the presentpetition are as under:- The petitioners, incidently one of whom was minor atthe 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 theirmother late Smt. Shobha Rani, who happened to be an employee ofthe respondent-Board, be ordered to be released in their favour byquashing Annexures A-1 and A-2 as the husband of the deceased-employee, i.e. their father was living separately at Dharamshala andworking in a Hotel and during the lifetime of their mother, he neithervisited their house, nor he was looked after either his wife orchildren, i.e. the present petitioners. It was further the case of thepetitioners that petitioner No.2 met with a serious accident in theyear 2016 and he remained hospitalized, yet his father never visitedhim nor he ever came to village of the petitioners during the lifetimeof their mother.

3. The petition is resisted by the respondent-Board, interalia, on the ground that in terms of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972,the family pension is first payable to the spouse of deceasedemployee and in the event of the spouse not being available, onlythen the children are entitled to the same. As per respondent-Board,as the deceased was survived by her husband Rakesh Kumar,therefore, the family pension was correctly ordered to be released infavour of Rakesh Kumar. Though, said Rakesh Kumar was notimpleaded as a party respondent by the petitioners, however, hesubsequently moved an application for his impleadment and theapplication was allowed by impleading Rakesh Kumar as a party respondent.

4. Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for respondentRakesh Kumar has also submitted that in terms of the provisions ofRule 54 (6) (i) of CCS Pension Rules, it is the widow or widower, whois first entitled for pension and as it was not the case of thepetitioners that their father had remarried, therefore, he was entitledto receive the family pension. Mr. Rajput further submitted that therespondent Rakesh Kumar remained with his wife till her last timeand took proper care of her and he otherwise also has performed hisduties both as a father as also as a husband and he would continueto 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 aftercarefully gone through the pleadings as also the relevant provisionsof CCS Pension Rules, this Court is of the considered view that thepresent petition is completely misconceived.

6. The private respondent happens to be the father of thepetitioners and husband of late employee of the respondent-Board.The factum of the private respondent being father of the petitionersis evident from the memo of parties itself, wherein both thepetitioners have depicted themselves to be the children of the privaterespondent.

7. Rule 54 (6) of the CCS Pension Rules, inter alia, providesthat in terms of Clause-1 thereof, family pension is first payable tothe widow or widower as the case may be, upto the date of death orremarriage and in the event of the same being payable to anunmarried son, the same is payable till he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning hislivelihood, whichever is the earliest and in the case of an unmarrieddaughter, until she gets married or until she starts earning herlivelihood whichever is earlier. However, the provision does notprovides that the children would be simultaneously eligible to get thefamily pension pro rata alongwith surviving widow or widower. Whenwe apply the provisions of said Rules to be the facts of this case, theonly inference which can be drawn is this that till the husband ofthe deceased employee is eligible to receive family pension, thefamily pension has to be paid to the husband and in case he incursany disqualification which renders him ineligible to receive thefamily pension, then obviously the right of the children will accrue toreceive the family pension as per CCS Pension Rules.

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

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitsthat the father is not taking care of the children. Be that as it may, the observations which have been made by this Court are onlyrelatable to the factual matrix involved herein and this does notprecludes the children to seek appropriate remedy vis-a-vis theirmaintenance etc. against their father as per law.

December 30, 2022 (Rishi)

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge