- (1.)THE petitionerâ„¢s husband, after rendering 20 years of service as a Professor of chemistry in G.G.M. Science College, Jammu, died on 17 -9 -1985 when he was only 45 years of age. He was survived by his wife and three minor female children. In her claim for the grant of family pension, respondent No. 3 issued an intimation letter dated 1 -11 -1985 addressed to the Treasury Officer, Addl. Treasury, Jammu, intimating her that her family pension at the rate of Rs.494.40 and D.A.@ 581 per month w.e.f. from 18 -9 -I985. had been allowed with a further instruction to her to appear before the Treasury Officer to receive the payment. Calculating the pension under rule 20 (bb) of the Family Pension -cum -gratuity Rules, the family pension of the petitioner is likely to be reduced w.e.f. from 17.9.1992 when seven yearâ„¢s period is to lapse. It is submitted that SRO -310 of l986 dated 8.5:1986 provided that the family pension of the dependants of the government servants who die in harness, would be equal to the amount of last pay drawn by the deceased official for the first 7 years and thereafter the family pension was to be paid at the rate of 50% of the pay last drawn or twice the family pension admissible as per rule 20 (ii) (aaa) of the Family Pension -cum -gratuity Rules, which ever was less, For the next 7 years or till the deceased would have attained the age of 62 years whichever was earlier and thereafter the family pension would be made payable at the ordinary rates laid down in rule 20 (ii) (aaa) of the aforesaid rules, t has been prayed that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of benefit of SRO -310 of 1986 by quashing the words These rules shall be deemed to have come into effect from 1.1.1986" incorporated in the said SRO, It is submitted that denial to the petitioner of the grant of benefit was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)IN the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of the benefit of SRO -310 and that her petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that as no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated she is not entitled to maintain the present petition. It is contended that as per SRO 310 of 1986, family pension at the rate of last pay drawn by the deceased employee who dies while in service is admissible in service or upto the superannuation of the deceased employee whichever is earlier but it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to it. It is further submitted that the doctrine of classification was evolved to sustain a State action designed to help segment of the society in need of succor. The cut off date i.e. 1.1.1986 is claimed to be not arbitrary or devoid of rational consideration. In fixing the cut -off date the authorities are stated to have not acted mala fide with a view to deprive those who retired before 1.1.1986 of the benefit it was not practical to extend the benefits to such employees as UG scheme became operative i.e. from 1.1.1896.
(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On 11.3.1993, learned counsel for the parties agreed for disposal of the case at the admission stage. Vide a detailed order dated 15.7.1992 a direction was issued to respondents 1 to 3 to raise pension of the petitioner in terms of para 2 of SRO -310 of 1986 forthwith upon the petitionerâ„¢s furnishing an under -taking that in case the petitioner fails in her petition, she will reimburse the amount overdrawn by her. Learned counsel for the respondents have not seriously contested regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Otherwise also, it cannot be said that no fundamental or statutory right is alleged to have been violated inasmuch as the petitioner has preferred her claim upon the alleged violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The pension cannot be termed to be a mere concession and admittedly when the petitioner has been held entitled to the grant of pension, it cannot be said that she has no right to claim enhanced pension on the basis of SRO -310 of 1986.