Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pataso Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 January, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011144
Neutral CitationNo.2024:PHHC:011144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205
CWP-6740-2017 (O&M)
Decided on : 29.01.2024
Pataso Devi . . .petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Harshit Joon, Advocate for
Mr. Manvender Rathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of
law raised in the present petition has already been answered by the Division
Bench of this Court while passing the judgment in CWP No. 10208 of 1995
titled as 'Smt. Savitri Devi v. The State of Haryana and others' decided on
13.03.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view
the said judgment, the petitioner who is widow of Sh. Satbir Singh s/o Sh.
Ram Dia, who was working on the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar with the
respondents-department since 07.05.1996, is entitled for the grant of family
pension.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is ready to forgo her claim with regard to the grant of interest on
delayed payment of family pension, keeping in view the fact that the claim
was raised by filing the present petition in the year 2017.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
though there is no objection with regard to the fact that the question of law
raised in the present petition has already been answered by this Court while
passing the order in Smt. Savitri Devi's case (Supra) but nothing has come
on record that the late husband of the petitioner was medically examined at
the time when he was initially appointed on the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar
by the department concerned. Learned counsel for the respondents further
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011144
CWP-6740-2017 (O&M)
-2- 2024:PHHC:011144
submits that the said record with regard to the medical examination of the
petitioner could not be traced.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the case record with their able assistance.
5. It is a conceded position that every Government employee is
allowed to join the duties after the medical examination and only after the
said medical examination, he/she is declared fit to perform the duties for
the post in question. It is also a conceded position that after joining the
services, the late husband of the petitioner worked with the department from
07.05.1996 till 21.06.1996. That being the conceded position, the claim of
the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in Smt. Savitri Devi's case (Supra) .
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
where the question of law raised in the present petition has already been
answered by this Court while passing order in Smt. Savitri Devi's case
(Supra), the present petition is also allowed in same terms and conditions as
held in Smt. Savitri Devi's case (Supra) and the petitioner is entitled for the
grant of family pension alongwith arrears from the date the same becomes
due.
6. The respondents are directed to grant the family pension
admissible to the petitioner and grant her arrears from the due date within a
period of eight weeks from the receipt of copy of this order.
7. Present petition is allowed in above terms.
8. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed
of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
29.01.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011144
2 of 2
