Smt. Swaran Kaur v. The State Of Punjab And Others

V.K Bali, J.:— Claim of a widow for Dearness Allowance on family pension received by her as widow of Narinder Singh, an erstwhile Government employee, it appears to us, has been disputed and ultimately denied on wholly untenable grounds.

2. Husband of the petitioner, Narinder Singh, was employed as Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Banur, District Patiala and while in service he died on January 30, 1988 at the age of 53 years leaving behind one son and one daughter besides the petitioner. It is the positive case of petitioner that she had not remarried after the death of her husband nor any of her family members had secured any job on compassionate grounds on account of death of her husband. Family pension was, however, senctioned @Rs. 1200/- per month for the first seven years i.e till February 1995 which was to be reduced to Rs. 500/- per month after five years. Petitioner asserts that her family was entitled to Dearness Allowance along with family pension w. e. f. February 1, 1992 vide para 1-A(c) of the letter dated August 23, 1993 which deals with family pension and has been issued by the Punjab Government itself. It was, however, refused to her on the sole ground that family pensioners, who were employed on compassionate grounds after the death of bread winner, were not entitled to Dearness Allowance.

3. She raised number of verbal and written protests by clearly stating that none of her family members had got employment on compassionate grounds and that she was in service at the time when her husband died. Her repeated demands, both verbal and written, as mentioned above, however, fell on deaf ears. Constrained, thus, Smt. Swaran Kaur, petitioner herein, seeks Dearness Allowance on the family pension sanctioned on account of death of her husband, through present petition.

4. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate replies. Nothing worth-while has been mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. However, claim of the petitioner has been resisted and sought to be denied in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner is working as Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Manakpur, District Patiala, under the Punjab Government. As per instructions of the Government dated June 15, 1994 Dearness Allowance is not allowed on the family pension because she is getting DA on her own basic pay. Even though, there is reference of some instructions dated June 15, 1994, in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, these instructions have not been appended with the written statement nor, during the course of arguments, any such instructions have been brought to the notice of the Court. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has candidly admitted that there are neither any rules nor any instructions that might disentitle Dearness Allowance on family pension to a person who himself herself is in the Government employment. Learned counsel, however, submits that once a person is in employment and is getting Dearness Allowance commensurate to his/her pay scale, he/she cannot be entitled to Dearness Allowance on the family pension as that will amount to giving undue benefit to an employee.

5. Government employees of various categories are placed in various pay scales. Periodical Dearness Allowances as determined by the Government from time to time, are given to such employees commensurate to their pay scales for the sole reason that whereas the pay scales have not increased, purchasing power of a rupee has gone down on account of phenomenon of ever increasing prices of various commodities necessarily required by an individual to work out his needs. Concededly, petitioner would have been entitled to Dearness Allowance on the family pension if she was not herself to be in the employment of the Government. Can Dearness Allowance be denied to her on the family pension given to her on account of death of her husband, is the only question that needs determination. As mentioned above, respondents have not brought to the notice of the Court any service rules, instructions or guidelines that might dis-entitle a family pensioner Dearness Allowance on such pension. We may, however, hasten to add that if there were such rules or instructions it would have been worth-while to examine the constitutionality or legality of the same.

6. The contention of the learned counsel that giving of Dearness Allowance on family pension to a person, who himself/herself is in Government services would amount to giving undue advantage is totally devoid of any merit. As mentioned above, Dearness Allowance is paid on pay and pension for the sole reason that purchasing power of a rupee is dwindling everyday. It is with a view to compensate an employee or pensioner that Dearness Allowance is paid Which is commensurate to the increase in the price index. In considered view of this Court, no distinction at all can be made for payment of Dearness Allowance to those family pensioners who themselves are in service or those who are not so. All family pensioners are entitled to Dearness Allowance on the family pension. The claim of the petitioner for Dearness Allowance on family pension, thus, in our view, has been resisted and denied on wholly untenable grounds. In fact, there was not even semblance of justification for withholding Dearness Allowance on the family pension which is already being granted to the petitioner. Dearness Allowance that she is getting on her own pay is as a matter of her own right and that cannot come in her way of getting Dearness Allowance on the family pension. A justifiable claim of the petitioner has been thwarted, in our view, on wholly illegal grounds. Those, who are responsible for looking into the matter, in our view, have failed in their duty. They have not applied their mind to one of the most legitimate claim made by the petitioner. While denying the relief to the petitioner, they have not even cared to look into the Rules or instructions, governing the field nor they have used common sense.

7. This writ petition is consequently allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to forthwith pay Deamess Allowance to the petitioner at various rates admissible on family pension, already sanctioned by the respondents from the date/dates the same became admissible. Let the total amount of Deamess Allownce be calculated and paid to the petitioner, as mentioned above forthwith. The amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date(s) it became payable till such time and same is paid. This is one of those cases where this Court would further like to direct the Government to calculate the Deamess Allowance and pay it to the petitioner and fix the responsiblity of the person(s) who declined this relief to the petitioner. If the responsibility is fixed, the interest paid by the Government whould be recovered from the person(s), responsible for denying this legitimate claim of the petitioner. This petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-.

8. Petition allowed.