Judgment:
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Jamir, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.N. Sarmah, learned standing counsel, Railways, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. In a nut-shell, the case of the writ petitioner may be stated as follows :
While working as a Senior Rakshak in Railway Protection Special Force at Panagarh, West Bengal, the petitioner's eldest son, SRK Nungsangmeren (since deceased), was run over by a train on 9.8.1977 and died on the spot. The petitioner's said son used to contribute, out of his meagre salary, a sum of Rs. 180 per month for the family, which consisted of his parents, his brothers and sisters. The petitioner is the widowed mother of the said deceased and she was largely dependent on the income of her said deceased son, for, the petitioner's husband's annual income was barely Rs. 4,000. At the time, when the petitioner's son died, the Railways did not have any extraordinary pension rules of their own ; but by virtue of Rule 273 of the Railway Protection Forces Rules, 1987, the provisions of the Central Civil Services Extraordinary Pension Rules, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1939') stood applicable to the employees of the Railway Protection Force. The petitioner's case was also, thus, covered by the provisions of the Rules of 1939. In terms of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1939, the parents, who were n largely dependent for financial support on the Government servant concerned, were entitled to receive extraordinary pension in terms of the said Rules. Though the petitioner applied for extending to her the benefit of pension under the Rules of 1939, the petitioner's request was turned down by the respondents by a letter, dated 4.3.2005, on the ground that since the parents of the said deceased had an income of Rs. 4,000 per annum, they cannot be said to have been largely dependent on their said deceased son. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court, with the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s).
3. Resisting the petitioner's prayer made in this writ petition, the respondents have contended to the effect, inter alia, that on account of the fact that the petitioner's parents had an annual income of Rs. 4,000, the petitioner cannot be said to have been largely dependent for her sustenance on the income of her said deceased son. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondents have contended that the petitioner was not wholly dependent on the income of her said deceased son and was, therefore, rightly denied the benefit of the extraordinary pension, what needs to be noted is that Rule 11 of the Rules of 1939 do not use the word 'wholly'; what Rule 11 uses is the word 'largely' and, on a bare reading of Rule 11, it becomes crystal clear that if the parents of a Government servant were largely dependent for support and are in pecuniary need, they would be entitled to extraordinary pension. In short, it is not necessary for invoking Rule 11 that the parents concerned must be wholly dependent on the income of the deceased Government servant. What Rule 11 really requires is that the parents, who seek extraordinary pension, must show that they were largely dependent on the deceased and that they are in pecuniary need.
4. In the above backdrop, when I turn to the factual matrix of the present case, what attracts my attention prominently is that the annual income of the parents of the said deceased was barely Rs. 4,000 and the said deceased used to contribute, according to the averments made in the writ petition, as much as Rs. 180 per month to the petitioner's family. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not largely dependent on the income of her said deceased son and that she is not in pecuniary need. Considered thus, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner's case was fully covered by the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1939 and the denial to extend the benefit of Rule 11 to her was, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, wholly illegal and unjust.
5. Coupled with what have been pointed out above, I am firmly of the view that the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of provision of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1939.
6. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition succeeds. The respondents are hereby directed to make available to the petitioner requisite pension in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1939. The whole exercise, so directed, shall be completed within a period of three months from today.
7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition shall stand disposed of.
8. No Order as to costs.