LexSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus SHAKUNTLA DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. SHAKUNTLA DEVI 63 allowed by the High Court, the State Government filed the A appeal. The other appeals were filed in similar circumstances. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The matter relating to grant of family B ------w1 pension in the State concerned is covered by Part I Volume II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 framed under the Rules. •._ The Rules having been framed under 'Proviso' to Article 309 of the Constitution of India evidently apply to the c Government employees. The 1964 Scheme is subject to the provisions of the Rules. Before a person can be said to have acquired a right to obtain the benefits of ·1964 Family Pension Scheme, he must satisfy the eligibility as envisaged under the Rules. Family pension can be. D granted to the dependent of deceased Government employee under the Family Pension Scheme only by way of a further relief and not as independent of the' main Pension Rules. The Scheme cannot be read independent of the Rules. If a person was not a Government employee, E the question of his dependent becoming entitled to the benefits of family pension scheme would not arise. [Paras _... 9, 10, 13 and 20] (71-D; 79-8, C] Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., F AIR (1995) SC 962, referred to. S.K. Mastan Bee. v. The General Manager, South Central Railway & Anr., (2003] 1 SCC 184 and Kanta Devi v. State of Haryana, (2000) 2 SCT 32, held inapplicable. G 1.2. In terms of the Rules; the following conditions precedent must be fulfilled before the benefit of family pension can be extended: 1) the employee must be a Government employee; (2) he must be employed in a pensionable establishment; and (3) he must have H 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A become eligible to derive the benefit thereof. The distinction between a pensionable establishment and a provident fund establishment must be borne in mind. Pension although is not a bounty, entitlement thereto is only under a statute. Only when the conditions precedent B provided for in the statute are fulfilled, an employee would be entitled thereto. In the instant case, the offers of appointment made in favour of the employees in no uncertain terms show that they were appointed on an ad hoc basis. The appointment was not regular. [Para 22 and C 23] [79-H; 80-B] 1.3. The very fact that a regularization scheme was framed by the State is a clear pointer to show that the employees concerned were not regularly employed. They had sought for regularization of their service and at least D in one· case, the request was turned down. The validity thereof was not questioned. It attained finality. Only when an employee renders service in a pensionable service, he · would be entitled to pension. [Paras 24 and 25] [80-E, F; E 81-D] M.P. Housing Board and Anr. v. Manoj Shrivastava, [2006] 2 SCC 702 and Uttar Har1ana Bijli Vitran Ngam Lt. & Ors. v. Surji Devi, (2008) 1 SCALE 570, relied on. /1.11.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board, F (2004] 9 SCC 755; ·Mahendra L. Jain & Ors. v. Indore Development Authority & Ors., [2005] 1 sec 639 and Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Zora Singh and Ors., (2005] 6 sec 776, referred to . . 1.4. If the initial appointment was for a fixed period G and the appointment could be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason, such appointment cannot be said to be an appointment on a permanent post or a temporary sanctioned post. Unless and until the post itself is a permanent or a temporary one, H the same would not answer the description of a , •• 1 < \ STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. SHAKUNTLA DEVI 65 substantive and permanent employment. [Para 24] [80-G, A H; 81-A] 2.1. It is trite that each Government employee should be borne in his respective cadre, ·cadre' having been defined to mean the strength of a service or a part of 8 service sanctioned as a separate unit. The Government employees having regard to the provision enshrined in Article 309 Qf the Constitution enjoy a 'status'. Their appointment must be made in teMns of appropriate recruitment rules and upon compliance of the equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the C Constitution of India. [Para 13 and 15] [76-F, G; 77-E] 2.2. Only by reason of fulfillment of the conditions laid down under the contract of service and/or the statutory rules
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.