SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is the mother of deceased employee Vishnu Kant, seeks family pension in the instant writ petition.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that late son of the petitioner Shri Vishnu Kant was appointed as Class-IV employee (Jaldhari) vide order dated February 25, 9185. While he was in service he died on November 3, 1995. At the time of his death he was posted in Animal Husbandry Department, Bada Khera Ajmer. The deceased was Bachelor and ided leaving behind his mother Dhapu Bai (petitioner) as the only legal representative. The petitioner approached respondents to grant family pension but no justice was done to her. When for a long time family pension was not granted, the petitioner made representation on July 31, 2002, which was returned with the endorsement the petitioner did not fall within the definition of family/dependent thus was not entitled to family pension. The Deputy Director however vide letter dated February 14, 2002 asked the petitioner to submit succession certificate. The petitioner claims that exclusion of dependent mother in view of Rule 286d (old rule) is irrational and without any basis and seeks to quash the communication dated February 14, 2002. The respondents in the return averred that mother of the deceased employee does not fall within the definition of family/dependent and the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. Since the payment of gratuity Rs. 10,800/- has already been made to the petitioner on July 9, 2003 the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. Controversy raised in this writ petition, has already been settled by this court in Smt. Kartiyani vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In para 10 of the judgment, it was indicated as under:- " 10. In my opinion, for the purpose of family pension, in such situation, the exclusion of mother who has otherwise been included as dependent in Rule 260 for the purpose of Rule 261 read with Rules 263 and 265 is arbitrary. The scheme of pension is to provide pension to the pensioner for the service s rendered and to grant family pension to the dependent after the death of the pensioner. It cannot be imagined that father or mother though have been specified as dependents for the purpose of pension, in the pension rule 265, if a deceased Government servant has rendered 20 years of service but those very father or mother have been excluded if the service is less than 20 years for the purpose of family pension. Therefore, the exclusion of dependent parents to receive the family pension, if no other dependent is available or if the official dies as unmarried, for the services rendered by such official of less than 20 years. When specially family pension is payable under the New Family Pension rule 268b even if service is one year and less than 20 years, but to only the heirs mentioned therein, under the rules, is not justified and ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The provision in Rule 261 that after completion of not less than 20 years qualifying service has no rational or nexus and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The family pension shall be payable to the heirs as mentioned in Rule 265 and in that order even if the service is less than 20 years in consonance with Rule 268b of the Rules. Therefore, Rule 265 shall also be applicable in the order mentioned in such rules to the heirs mentioned in the rules even if the service is less than 20 years under the New Family Pension rules, if family pension has been made payable. " Ratio indicated in Smt. Kartiyani vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. In my considered opinion the mother who is included as heir in class-I of Hindu Succession Act falls within the definition of family/dependent of deceased employee and she is entitled to family pension. The Constitution of India forbids class legislation which has no reasonable basis. Rule 268-D, which excludes the mother from the definition of family is strictly in conflict with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, and thus ultra vires so far it excludes the mother from the family of the deceased employee therefore deserves to be struck down.
(3.) THE petitioner, who undeniably is the mother of deceased employee Vishnu Kant, can not be asked to submit succession certificate in order to grant family pension to her. For these reasons, I allow the writ petition, set aside the communication dated February 14, 2002 (Ann. 7) and direct the respondents to grant family pension and other benefits admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the rules. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be not order as to costs. .;