VIJENDER JAIN, C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner, the mother of the deceased employee SurinderPal Sidhu, who died in harness on August 15,1988 had filed a writ petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Para. 2(1) of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995. She had also challenged the order passed by the respondent on 13 February 1996 which had been communicated to her by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Hoshiarpur informing the petitioner that she does not fall within the purview of ''family '' of the deceased, as per Para. 2(1) of the Pension Scheme. The petitioner also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include father and mother in the definition of Family in the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. A further direction was sought to the respondents to release Family Pension to the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner claimed that her son namely Surinder Pal Sidhu was serving as Development Officer Grade I with National Insurance Company. He died while in service on 15 August 1988. He died issueless. At the time of death of her son, there was no provision for grant of Family Pension. However, in the year 1995, the respondents introduced a Pension Scheme, which was known as General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995. The criteria for grant of Family Pension was as under : ''(i) employee who was in service on 1 January 1986 but died on or before 31 October 1993 or had retired on or before 31 October 1993 but died before 28 June 1995. (ii) employee who joined service on or before 31 October 1993 and died while in service after 1 November 1993 but before 28 June 1995. (in) employee who joined service on or after 1 November 1993 service before 28 June 1995. '' The petitioner claimed -that her case was covered under C1.(i) above. Her claim has, however, been rejected on the ground that she does not fail within the definition of Family as given in Clause 2(1) of the Pension Scheme, which is as under : ''Definitions: In this scheme unless the context otherwise requires: (a) to (k) XXXX (1) 'Family' in relation to an employee means - (i) wife in the case of a male employee or husband in the case of a female employee; (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the persons surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery; (iii) son who has not attained the age of twenty -five years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty -five years including such son or daughter adopted legally before retirement. '' On completion of pleadings and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge the Insurance Company has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants has, firstly, contended that the judgment of Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab and another v. Devinder Kaur [JT 1999 (10) SC 549], was not considered by the learned Single Judge. At the outset, we asked the learned counsel for the appellants whether the said judgment was cited before the learned Single Judge, the answer is negative. Let us assume that the judgment of the Supreme Court which was rendered in 1999 was to be considered by the learned Single Judge. Whether the learned Single Judge has gone wrong in answering the question, which was posed before him by the writ -petitioner. In that case the Supreme Court considered the following question : he short question is whether the deceased respondent Kharak Singh and his surviving widow who is now the sole respondent representing his estate were entitled to get family pension on the demise of their unmarried son Daljit Singh who died in harness on 5 November 1985 when he was in Government service of the appellant State. '';