HC admonishes UT for denying family pension to specially-abled woman

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped UT Chandigarh for going against the rules to deny family pension to a 70 per cent specially-abled daughter of an employee, solely because she was married. The Bench also held that the income of her husband — 100 per cent specially-abled — could not be taken into account for rejecting her claim.

Admonishing the authorities for their approach, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice HS Grewal observed: “We deprecate the approach adopted by the Union of India in challenging the proceedings before this court with regard to a specially-abled person, who has no source of earning and was unmarried at the time of death of her father. Further, the earnings of her husband cannot be said to be the earnings of the family for denying her family pension.”

Dismissing the petition filed by UT Chandigarh and other petitioners, the Bench held that a daughter suffering from any mental disorder or physical disability to the extent of being unable to earn a livelihood would be entitled to family pension even after the age of 25 years, irrespective of her marital status.

“We find that the approach adopted by the petitioners in denying family pension to a specially-abled daughter, who was unmarried at the time of her father’s retirement, was against the rules. As per Clause 4 and the proviso thereto of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, if the son or daughter of a government servant is suffering from any mental disorder or is physically crippled or disabled to the extent that he or she is unable to earn a livelihood, the family pension shall be admissible to him or her even after becoming otherwise ineligible for it, irrespective of marriage. Merely because she got married will make no difference,” the Bench categorically ruled.

The judgment came in a case of Poonam, the 70 per cent specially-abled daughter of an employee who retired from service on June 30, 1999. She applied for grant of family pension after her father’s death in October 2014 while enclosing relevant documents.

The Bench was told her claim was rejected by the accounts officer, who took into consideration her husband’s income for assessing her eligibility. Rejecting the reasoning as fallacious, the Bench asserted: “The accounts officer has acted in a mechanical manner in rejecting the claim of the applicant/ respondent…. Admittedly, the respondent was merely a housewife, having no source of income.”

The Bench directed that family pension, if not already released, would be paid to Poonam along with 9 per cent interest on arrears before imposing Rs 25,000 costs on UT Chandigarh.

Chandigarh