Savitri Devi vs State Of Haryana & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6161 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.211                                          CWP No.378 of 2016
                                                    Date of Decision: 05.07.2022


Savitri Devi                                                          .... Petitioner

                                           Versus

State of Haryana and others                                        ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:       Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for
               Mr. R.D.Yadav, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Narender Behgal, AAG, Haryana.
                    ***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in

the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the

pension in respect of the service rendered by her late husband namely

Deegh Ram, who was appointed as a Driver with the Haryana Roadways on

10.07.1984 and served upto 15.08.1984, when unfortunately, he died while

on duty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only reason

given by the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled for the family

pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 as amended from time to

time, on the ground that the late husband of the petitioner did not had one

year of service to his credit at the time of his death, which is mandatory.

Learned counsel submits that the said question of law whether

one year of service is mandatory before the grant of family pension to the

legal heir, has already attained finality keeping in view the judgment

1 of 2

rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in

CWP No.10208 of 1995 decided on 13.03.1996 titled Savitri Devi versus

State of Haryana and others but still the respondents ignoring the said

judgment, which also relates to State of Haryana, are again relying upon the

said provision of law, which has been held to be bad.

Learned State counsel very fairly submits that though the

department has raised the objection of requirement of minimum one year

service before the family pension is granted under the Family Pension

Scheme, 1964, but keeping in view the judgment rendered in Savitri Devi's

case (supra), the same is not essential anymore. Hence, the claim of the

petitioner will be considered for the grant of family pension from the date

when she became entitled for the same after the death of her husband and

the department may kindly be given two months' time to process her case for

release of necessary benefits.

Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of learned State

counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further grievance

of the petitioner survives in the present petition and therefore, the present

petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further.

Ordered accordingly.

                                          (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                                  JUDGE
05.07.2022
Maninder



             Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable                :      Yes/No


                                 2 of 2