Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) State Of Haryana Etc vs Ram Kali on 2 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043649
CM-1305-C-2024 in/and RSA-906-2003 2024:PHHC:043649 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(101) CM-1305-C-2024 in/and
RSA-906-2003
Date of Decision : April 02nd 2024
State of Haryana and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ram Kali .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
for the non-applicant/appellants.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate,
for the applicant-respondent.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-1305-C-2024
Present application has been filed for fixing the main Regular
Second Appeal at an early actual date, which is pending for the last more
than two decades.
Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.
Mr. Harish Nain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of
non-applicant/appellants. He raises no objection for the grant of prayer as
made in the present application.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.
On joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main
Regular Second Appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043649
CM-1305-C-2024 in/and RSA-906-2003 2024:PHHC:043649 2
RSA-906-2003
1. Present appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana
challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below by which, the
suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the grant of pension has been
allowed.
2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation
of the issue in hand.
3. The husband of respondent-plaintiff namely Umed Singh was
working as Beldar on work charge basis with the Irrigation Department,
Haryana and while in service, he unfortunately died on 13.01.1981.
Thereafter, as per the evidence, which has come on record, the respondent-
plaintiff married the brother of the deceased namely Ved Pal. After a period
of 17 years of the death of Umed Singh, the respondent-plaintiff filed a civil
suit claiming the benefit of family pension. The said civil suit has been
allowed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.2001
holding that to claim the family pension, there is no limitation provided as
the same is a continuous wrong and further held that despite the fact that the
respondent-plaintiff had married the brother of the deceased, as she
remained in the same family, the benefit of family pension is admissible to
the respondent-plaintiff. The family pension was allowed along with arrears
@ 18% per annum.
4. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the
State filed an appeal, which also came to be dismissed on 30.09.2002.
Hence, the present regular second appeal.
5. It may be noticed that while issuing the notice in the present
appeal, the operation of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below was
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043649
CM-1305-C-2024 in/and RSA-906-2003 2024:PHHC:043649 3
stayed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the family
pension is to be made admissible on the basis of the Rules governing the
service and as per the Family Pension Scheme of 1964, the widow/widower
after the death of the spouse who was in service, are only entitled for family
pension upto the date of remarriage and in the present case, even before
filing of the civil suit, the respondent-plaintiff had married the brother of the
deceased hence, the Court below without even adverting to the Rules
governing the service on aspect of family pension allowed the claim in
favour of the respondent-plaintiff, which finding is perverse to the facts and
rules, which have already come on record.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that
though the respondent-plaintiff married the brother of the deceased but the
same was performed by way of Kareva marriage hence, the said marriage
cannot be treated as valid so as to decline the benefit of family pension to
the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also
relies upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP
No.17970 of 2008 titled as Shanti Devi vs. State of Haryana and others,
decided on 05.09.2009.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
9. It is a settled principle of law that the family pension is to be
granted as per the rules governing the service. It is also a conceded position
that in the year 1981 when the husband of the respondent-plaintiff died, the
Family Pension Scheme of 1964 was in operation. A bare perusal of the
said Scheme of 1964 will reveal that the widow/widower is only entitled for
family pension upto the date when she/he remarried. The relevant rules
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043649
CM-1305-C-2024 in/and RSA-906-2003 2024:PHHC:043649 4
governing the service is as under:-
" Para 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 reads in the
following terms:
(iii) The pension is admissible:-
(a) in the case of widow/widower upto the date of death or
remarriage whichever is earlier.
(v) In the event of remarriage or death of the widow/widower
the pension will be granted to the minor children through their
natural guardian, if any, otherwise through their defacto
guardian on production of indemnity bond, etc. on the analogy
of the orders contained in F.D. circular letter No.6837- (5)
FRI-61/8358, dated the 29th July, 1961. In disputed cases,
however, payments will be made through a legal guardian (i.e.
guardian appointed by a court of law).
10. Once, as per the Rules, the family pension is only admissible
upto the date of marriage, the respondent-plaintiff, who has already re-
married the younger brother of her late husband namely Umed Singh,
cannot claim that she is entitled for the family pension. The Courts below
without adverting to the Rules governing the service on the aspect of the
grant of family pension have allowed the claim of respondent-plaintiff,
which findings of the Courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shanti Devi's
case (supra).
12. The said judgment will not come to the rescue of the
respondent-plaintiff in order to claim the benefit of family pension. In
Shanti Devi's case (supra), the second marriage was being disputed and
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043649
CM-1305-C-2024 in/and RSA-906-2003 2024:PHHC:043649 5
nothing had come on record that the respondent-plaintiff therein had re-
married the brother of the deceased. In the absence of any such
record/evidence before the Court, the benefit was allowed in the case of
Shanti Devi's case (supra). The observations were also made that nothing
was brought to the notice of this Court that there is any prohibition for the
grant of family pension after the re-marriage.
13. In the present case, the rules which govern the service, have
already been reproduced hereinbefore, according to which, the family
pension is only admissible upto the date of re-marriage and it is a conceded
fact that on the date when the respondent-plaintiff filed suit after the 17
years of the death of her husband Umed Singh, she had already remarried
with younger brother of the deceased. That being so, the judgment in
Shanti Devi's case (supra) will not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case so as to claim the benefit of family
pension.
14. No other argument has been raised.
15. Keeping in view the above, as the judgments and decrees of the
Courts below are contrary to the Rules governing the service and the said
Rules have not been even adverted to, the judgments and decrees of the
Courts below cannot be sustained being perverse to the Rules governing the
aspect of grant of family pension and are accordingly set aside.
Consequently, even the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is also
dismissed.
April 02nd, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
