Case Title:
Raj Bala Vs State of Haryana and Others
Date:
11.05.2022
Bench:
JUSTICE G.S SANDHAWALIA
JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Parties:
Appellant – Raj Bala
Respondent – State of Haryana and Others
Subject
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requesting to strike down the rule of not recognising the adopted child after retirement under the Family Pension Scheme making it discriminatory, arbitrary and offending under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Important Provisions
Article 226 of The Constitution of India – A writ petition can be filed under any High Court.
Article 14 of The Constitution of India – Right to equality.
Overview
- The petitioner was an unmarried adopted daughter aged 22 years.
- The petitioner was adopted on 07.04.1995 when she was 5 months oldby Guggu Ram who was 61 years old and had retired in the year 1993.
- The proof of adoption was shown through Middle examination certificate, ration card, Aadhar card and Succession certificate for receiving the pension.
- The petitioner had attached the death certificates of both the adoptive father and mother and gave all necessary requirements but was denied pension stating that the petitioner was adopted after the date of retirement.
- Thereby the writ petition was filed by the petitioner relying upon Rule 10 of the Haryana Civil Service Pension Rules, 2016 which stated that unmarried eldest dependant daughter up to the age of 25 years or up to the date of marriage can claim family pension and was admissible.
- The petitioner also relied upon Note 3 which stated that son/daughter would include legally adopted children under Hindu Law or Personal Law.
- The state responded to this by saying that the claim was rejected under Note 3 on the ground that the adoption was after retirement.
Issues raised
Whether denying family pension to a child adopted by parents after their retirement is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Judgment Analysis
- The court stated that the Note 3 enhances discrimination between children adopted before and after retirement.
- The rule was to be quashed as it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and discriminates against children legally adopted after retirement.
- The court relied upon the case of Smt. Bhagwanti Vs. Union of India and of Gurdial Singh vs. State of Haryana where the wife had married after retirement and was denied pension. It was held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the wife was entitled to receive pension.
- The court then relied upon the cases of Smt. Lakshmi Kunwar vs. State of Rajasthan, and Kanta Devi vs. UOI and stated that in the present scenario with respect to the cases mentioned above it was found that the Note suffers from discrimination and arbitrariness.
Conclusion
The court concluded that there was no dispute regarding the validity of adoption and all necessary documents were submitted by the petitioner and thereby disallowing the pension on the basis that the adoption took place after the retirement was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore the writ petition was allowed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
