Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI BAL RAJ SHARMA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 736 JT 1996 (5) 600
1996 SCALE (4)463
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High
Court of Jammu & Kashmir dated July 10, 1992 made in
Contempt petition no. 2879/91. The admitted position is that
one Smt. Melo Devi, a teacher, claims her dues after her
retirement. While the claims were under settlement, she
filed a writ petition. pending writ petition, she died. The
son of Melo Devi, by name Bal Raj Sharma, was substituted as
legal representative. When he was called upon to submit the
claims, he had also set up the will executed be his mother
in favour of his son, viz, the grandson of Melo Devi, as to
his entitlement to future pension. We are informed that the
claims due on her retirement and the pension to which she
was entitled as on the date of her demise were calculated
and the amount was deposited in the court. The only
question, therefore, is: whether her grandson is entitled to
the family pension?
’Family’ has been defined in Rule 11 of schedule 15 of
the J & k CSR, Vol. II and para 240 B (II) of CSR Vol. 1
thus:
"11. For purpose of these rules the
term "Family" shall mean-
(a) Wife,
(b) Husband, in case of female
officer,
(C) (Minor) sons,
(d) unmarried and widowed
daughters,
(e) Brothers below the age of 18
years and unmarried or widowed
sisters,
(f) father, and
(g) Mother".
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
"The term "family" for the purpose
of Article 240B shall mean
(a) Wife, in the case of male
officer;
(b) Husband, in the case of a
female officer;
(c) Sons;
(D) Unmarried and widowed
daughters (including step
children and adopted
children);
(e) Brothers below the age of 18
years and unmarried and
widowed sisters;
(f) Father;
(g) Mother;
(h) Married daughters; and
(i) Children of a pre-deceased
son".
It would thus be seen that grandson is not one of the
members of the family for which he is entitled to lay any
claim on the basis of a will said to have been executed by
his grandmother. It would be seen that since her son Bal Raj
Sharma is already an employee, hi is not entitled to the
family pension. Under those circumstances, the High Court
was clearly in error in directing payment of pension to
grandson and also issuing contempt for non-compliance of its
order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. it is open
the respondent to withdraw the amounts which are stand
deposited in the court.