CWP-14749 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (215) Inder Dev Sharma State of Punjab CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. direction upon the respondents, on account of the demise of sister of the petitioner, namely, Kamla 2. Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Payal, District Ludhiana her demise, she was unmarried, and petitioner (brother), entitlin 3. respondent No.2, members, or legal representative nominee. However, the same was not paid to him 14749-2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Inder Dev Sharma Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, prayer is made for issuance of a direction upon the respondents, to release the amount of Death on account of the demise of sister of the petitioner, namely, Kamla Succinctly, the deceased-Kamla Devi, was serving as Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Payal, District Ludhiana her demise, she was unmarried, and the only surviving legal heir is the petitioner (brother), entitling him for all consequential benefits The petitioner, after the demise of his sister, respondent No.2, for grant of payment of dues, payable to the family members, or legal representatives of the deceased/employee nominee. However, the same was not paid to him 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14749-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.07.2026 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Through the instant writ petition, prayer is made for issuance of a to release the amount of Death-cum-Gratuity, on account of the demise of sister of the petitioner, namely, Kamla Devi. Kamla Devi, was serving as Peon, in the Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Payal, District Ludhiana. At the time of the only surviving legal heir is the consequential benefits. , after the demise of his sister, had approached the for grant of payment of dues, payable to the family s of the deceased/employee, being the nominee. However, the same was not paid to him rather he was directed to Through the instant writ petition, prayer is made for issuance of a Gratuity, Peon, in the . At the time of the only surviving legal heir is the approached the for grant of payment of dues, payable to the family , being the he was directed to MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.13 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-14749 produce the Succession Certificate. 4. before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, and t granted to him by learned Civil Court concerned, on 14. the petitioner submitted also fulfilled all other requisite formalities. concerned, o released an amount of Rs.50,000/ as leave encashment Death-cum- revision, was not released to the petitioner. 5. Accountant General, Punjab per Rule 6.16(b) dated 15.12.2000, issued by the Department of Finance, Govt. of Punjab, brother does not fall in the definition of family members, hence not entitled to the pensionary benefits. Even, for the family pension. 6. has approached this Court, by filing the instant writ petition, which is pending adjudication since 2001. 7. instant claim, submitted that as defined under Rule 6.16 Volume-II. She further submits th Govt. Official/Officer 14749-2001 (O&M) produce the Succession Certificate. The petitioner applied for issuance of a Succession Certificate before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, and t granted to him by learned Civil Court concerned, on 14. the petitioner submitted the Succession Certificate, to respondent No.2, and also fulfilled all other requisite formalities. concerned, on receipt of the Succession Certificate and other documents, an amount of Rs.50,000/-, on account of as leave encashment. However, an amount of Rs.72,216/ -Gratuity, and Rs.8,106/-, on account of arrears of pay and grade revision, was not released to the petitioner. The family pension case of the petitioner was sent to the office of Accountant General, Punjab, who rejected the same with the remarks that as Rule 6.16(b) of Civil Services Rules, Volume dated 15.12.2000, issued by the Department of Finance, Govt. of Punjab, brother does not fall in the definition of family members, hence not entitled to the pensionary benefits. Even, the Succession Certificate, does not entitle him for the family pension. Fetching grievance from the denial of such relief, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the instant writ petition, which is pending adjudication since 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the instant claim, submitted that a brother is included in the definition of family, as defined under Rule 6.16-B (1) (a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, . She further submits that Sub-Rule (2) of the Official/Officer, to nominate one or more person, after confirmation, 2 he petitioner applied for issuance of a Succession Certificate before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, and the same was granted to him by learned Civil Court concerned, on 14.09.2000. Thereafter, the Succession Certificate, to respondent No.2, and also fulfilled all other requisite formalities. The headmistress of the school the Succession Certificate and other documents, , on account of ex-gratia, and Rs.38,649/ . However, an amount of Rs.72,216/-, on account of , on account of arrears of pay and grade The family pension case of the petitioner was sent to the office of , who rejected the same with the remarks that as of Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, and the clarification dated 15.12.2000, issued by the Department of Finance, Govt. of Punjab, brother does not fall in the definition of family members, hence not entitled to the Succession Certificate, does not entitle him Fetching grievance from the denial of such relief, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the instant writ petition, which is pending Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the a brother is included in the definition of family, of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Rule (2) of the ibid Rules, entitles the , to nominate one or more person, after confirmation, he petitioner applied for issuance of a Succession Certificate he same was 0. Thereafter, the Succession Certificate, to respondent No.2, and of the school the Succession Certificate and other documents, , and Rs.38,649/-, , on account of , on account of arrears of pay and grade The family pension case of the petitioner was sent to the office of , who rejected the same with the remarks that as II, and the clarification dated 15.12.2000, issued by the Department of Finance, Govt. of Punjab, a brother does not fall in the definition of family members, hence not entitled to the Succession Certificate, does not entitle him Fetching grievance from the denial of such relief, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the instant writ petition, which is pending Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the a brother is included in the definition of family, of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Rules, entitles the , to nominate one or more person, after confirmation, MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.13 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-14749 conferring the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under the apposite Rules. Coordinate Bench of this Court in another vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary Local Self Govt. Department and another’ petition, the grant of Death brother of the deceased employee. 8. the strength of the reply, submits that the nominee by the deceased employee. proviso attached with the Services Rules, has a family, the nomination cannot be made in favour of any person or persons other than rightly in view of the Rules, has declined to release the benefit of Death Gratuity, in favour of the petitioner. 9. learned counsels for the parties concerned. 10. Services Rules significance, therefore, the same is extracted hereinafter : 14749-2001 (O&M) conferring the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under the apposite Rules. Finally, she has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-3234 another vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary Local Self Govt. Department and another’ decided on 27.02.1989 the grant of Death-cum-Gratuity, was released in favour of the brother of the deceased employee. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the strength of the reply, submits that the petitioner has n nominee by the deceased employee. He further submits that in view of the proviso attached with the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule Services Rules, Volume-II, at the time of making the nomination, if the officer ly, the nomination cannot be made in favour of any person or persons other than his family, and therefore, the authorities concerned, has in view of the Rules, has declined to release the benefit of Death Gratuity, in favour of the petitioner. This Court has considered the rival submissions, as made by learned counsels for the parties concerned. Since Rule 6.16-B (1) (a) and Sub Services Rules, Volume-II, is relied upon and the same has assumed significance, therefore, the same is extracted hereinafter : “Rule 6.16-B (1) For the purpose of this Rule : a) “family” shall include the following relatives of the officer:- i) wife or wives including judicially wives, in the case of male officer. ii) husband including judicially separated husband, in case of female officer. 3 conferring the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under the Finally, she has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by 3234-1986, titled ‘Ram Sarup and another vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary Local Self Govt. decided on 27.02.1989, to submit that in the similar Gratuity, was released in favour of the On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State, on petitioner has never been made the He further submits that in view of the (2) of Rule 6.16-B of the Punjab Civil at the time of making the nomination, if the officer ly, the nomination cannot be made in favour of any person or family, and therefore, the authorities concerned, has in view of the Rules, has declined to release the benefit of Death-cum This Court has considered the rival submissions, as made by B (1) (a) and Sub-Rule (2) thereof, Punjab Civil is relied upon and the same has assumed significance, therefore, the same is extracted hereinafter :- For the purpose of this Rule :- a) “family” shall include the following relatives of the i) wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives, in the case of male officer. ii) husband including judicially separated husband, in case conferring the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under the Finally, she has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by ‘Ram Sarup and another vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary Local Self Govt. in the similar Gratuity, was released in favour of the On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State, on ever been made the He further submits that in view of the B of the Punjab Civil at the time of making the nomination, if the officer ly, the nomination cannot be made in favour of any person or family, and therefore, the authorities concerned, has cum- This Court has considered the rival submissions, as made by Punjab Civil is relied upon and the same has assumed a) “family” shall include the following relatives of the separated wife or ii) husband including judicially separated husband, in case MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.13 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-14749 11. clear that brother, only below the age of 18 years is included in the definition of family. Further, officer, with regard to nomination of third person, in case, a family member is alive. As per proviso has a family, as defined under Rule 6.16 above the age of 18 years, is not covered under the the deceased employee has never nominated the petitioner, which fact is also reflected in the written statement filed by the respondents/State, and is not refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 14749-2001 (O&M) iii) sons iv) unmarried and widowed daughters (including step children and adopted children) v) brother below the age of 1 widowed sisters, including step brother and sisters. vi) father vii) mother (including adopted parents in case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption) viii) married daughters, and ix) children of a predeceased son. xxx xxx (2) An officer shall, at any time, after confirmation make a nomination conferring on one or more persons, the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under sub (2) and (4) of Rule 6.16 become admissible to him under sub and Rule 6.16 has not been paid to him before death Provided that if at the time of making the nomination the officer has a family the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family.” Perusal of Rule 6.16-B (1) of above Rules, makes it abundantly clear that brother, only below the age of 18 years is included in the definition of family. Further, Sub-Rule (2) of ibid Rules, imposes a restriction upon the officer, with regard to nomination of third person, in case, a family member is alive. As per proviso, the officer, cannot nominate a third person, in case, he has a family, as defined under Rule 6.16-B (1). It is app above the age of 18 years, is not covered under the the deceased employee has never nominated the petitioner, which fact is also reflected in the written statement filed by the respondents/State, and is not refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 iv) unmarried and widowed daughters (including step children and adopted children) v) brother below the age of 18 years and unmarried and widowed sisters, including step brother and sisters. mother (including adopted parents in case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption) viii) married daughters, and ix) children of a predeceased son. (2) An officer shall, at any time, after confirmation make a nomination conferring on one or more persons, the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 6.16-A and any gratuity which having ble to him under sub-Rule (1) of that Rule and Rule 6.16 has not been paid to him before death Provided that if at the time of making the nomination the officer has a family the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the B (1) of above Rules, makes it abundantly clear that brother, only below the age of 18 years is included in the definition Rules, imposes a restriction upon the officer, with regard to nomination of third person, in case, a family member is cannot nominate a third person, in case, he B (1). It is apparent that a brother, above the age of 18 years, is not covered under the definition of family. Even, the deceased employee has never nominated the petitioner, which fact is also reflected in the written statement filed by the respondents/State, and is not refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has iv) unmarried and widowed daughters (including step 8 years and unmarried and mother (including adopted parents in case of (2) An officer shall, at any time, after confirmation make a nomination conferring on one or more persons, the right to Rule A and any gratuity which having Rule (1) of that Rule Provided that if at the time of making the nomination the officer has a family the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the B (1) of above Rules, makes it abundantly clear that brother, only below the age of 18 years is included in the definition Rules, imposes a restriction upon the officer, with regard to nomination of third person, in case, a family member is cannot nominate a third person, in case, he a brother, Even, the deceased employee has never nominated the petitioner, which fact is also reflected in the written statement filed by the respondents/State, and is not Furthermore, the petitioner has MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.13 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-14749 not challenged the legality of the Rules (supra), which governs the service conditions, and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality on the part of the respondents, d 12. same is dismissed 13. July 08, 2026 Manpreet 14749-2001 (O&M) not challenged the legality of the Rules (supra), which governs the service conditions, and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality on the part of the respondents, declining the asked for relief. Consequently, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 5 not challenged the legality of the Rules (supra), which governs the service conditions, and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality on the part of eclining the asked for relief. Consequently, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No not challenged the legality of the Rules (supra), which governs the service conditions, and therefore, this Court does not find any illegality on the part of Consequently, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.13 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment