- (1.) The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.4.2013 rejecting the claim for grant of pensionary benefits on account of death of his father. The denial was allegedly on account of the fact that the petitioner, albeit under 25 years of age, was married while, as per the respondents, the family pension would be admissible to the unmarried son. The learned single Judge in terms of orders dated 2.8.2013, however, deemed it appropriate to enlarge the scope of the petition in view of certain perceived anomalies in the pension regulations. The relevant extract of the order is as under: Perusal of the Pension Regulations reveals some interesting anomalies particularly on the basis of sex and age. In Haryana, in the first place in the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 the very definition of family excludes married daughters. In case of retirement on or after 2006 even married sons are excluded and thus after that date the anomaly has been removed. Further perusal reveals another anomaly in Sub-rules (ii) and (iii) of Rule 4-B as per which in the case of children it would only the eldest eligible child who would be eligible for family pension and the other children would become eligible only on the ineligibility of the elder child. Further perusal reveals another anomaly in Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4-B which talks of lifetime entitlement of disabled children to family pension. Again Sub-rule (viii) lays down that a disabled daughter would become ineligible for family pension from the date she gets married while it is not so for disabled sons. This provision is again duplicated in Sub-rule (x)(b) of the said Rule. Sub-rule (xi) of Rule 4-B is to the following effect:- (xi) this benefit will be admissible only to the eligible disabled children whether born before or after retirement provided such son or daughter should be from a marriage, which took place before retirement of the Government employee. No such stipulation has been made in respect of other categories of dependents the implication is that this requirement is not there for wives & non-disabled children. In Punjab, the definition of family makes no mention of married daughters but allows unmarried daughters to draw family pension for life and sons upto the age of twenty five years. Further as per Rule 6.17(4)(i)(b) (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II, if the son of a government employee is suffering from any disorder or disability, physically or mentally, due to which he is not able to earn a livelihood even after attaining the age of twenty five years, he is entitled to family pension payable for life. In my opinion, this is a case where the State of Punjab and Haryana should have a re-look on this entire scheme so as to remove these anomalies. Consequently, the State of Punjab through Secretary, Department of Personnel is also impleaded as respondent No. 3.
(2.) The counter-affidavits of the two State Governments, in our view, seek to place the matter more in the historical perspective of how the rule came into being and how they are at present, rather than considering the perceived anomaly or any endeavour to remove the same. Possibly, the observations of the learned single Judge have not been understood in their perspective but for each of the issues raised justification is sought to be given.
(3.) We are, thus, of the view that on the larger issue the two State Governments need to appreciate the order dated 2.8.2013 in its correct perspective so as to make an endeavour to remove the anomaly and not to justify it, as intrinsically an anomaly needs to be removed.;