Ramrati Devi vs State of Haryana and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner is a widow of Attar Singh, Driver who died in a road accident on 18.09.1991 leaving behind his wife, minor daughter and son. Thereafter, petitioner was granted family pension and continued to receive the same till November, 1999 when a complaint was made to the Treasury Officer, Bhiwani with an assertion that the petitioner had remarried with Om Parkash younger brother of the deceased husband of the petitioner. On the basis of an enquiry held conclusion was drawn that since she has remarried, the family pension be stopped to her. Petitioner was not associated in the said enquiry which was held by the respondents. Now the petitioner has approached this Court for release of the family pension alongwith arrears and interest thereon. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply is that the petitioner having remarried after the death of her husband Attar Singh, she is not entitled to the benefit of family pension as per Rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II. It has been asserted that since she is remarried to Om Parkash, the younger brother of late husband of the petitioner, the family pension has rightly been stopped and that to, on the basis of a report dated 07.12.1999 (Annexure R-2).

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry which resulted in the report dated 07.12.1999 (Annexure R-2) on the basis of which family pension of the petitioner was stopped petitioner was not associated and, therefore, that is not binding upon the petitioner. In any case, he contends that the claim of the petitioner is covered in her favour by the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 7741 of 2007, titled as ''Smt. Balwant Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and another,'' decided on 23.04.2008. The claim of the petitioner is further stated to be covered in her favour by the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. 4623 of 2012, titled as Amrit Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , decided on 28.10.2013. Apart from that counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 7313 of 2013, titled as ''Kiran Kumari v. State of Haryana and others'', decided on 19.08.2013, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of family pension despite she having contracted a second marriage.

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that as per the provisions contained in Rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II, the benefit is only admissible for the grant of family pension in the case of a widow. After remarriage, the petitioner is not a widow any more and, therefore, family pension cannot be granted to her.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case and I am of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner is covered in favour by the judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Balwant Kaur''s case (supra) where Rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II has been dealt with and it has held as follows:-

"The short question that arises in this petition is whether the family pension of a widow, who has contracted a second marriage with the younger brother of her deceased husband, can be stopped and whether the recovery of the family pension, which has already been paid, can be effected from her. In this regard it would be relevant to reproduce rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 2, Chapter VIII, which is as under:

"8.35(1) A family pension will take effect from the day following the death of the Government employee or from such other date as the competent authority may decide.

(2) A family pension will ordinarily be tenable-

(a)(i) in the case of widow of mother until death or remarriage whichever occurs earlier.

(ii) in the case of a minor son, or minor brother, until he attains the age of 18;

(iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter or minor sister, until marriage or until she attains the age of 21, whichever occurs earlier.

(iv) in the case of a father, for life.

(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause - (a) a widow who re-marries her deceased husband''s brother and continues to life a communal life with or contributes to the support of other dependants of her deceased husband shall not be disqualified for the grant of extraordinary pension otherwise admissible to her under these rules.

Note 1.- A family pension granted to a posthumous child should commence from the date of his/her birth and not from the date of death of his/her father.

Note 2.- The family pension of a widow will cease on re-marriage but when such re-marriage is annulled by divorce, desertion or death of the second husband her pension may be restored upon proof that she is in necessitous circumstances and otherwise deserving."

Clause 2(b) of rule 8.35 Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 2, Chapter VIII clearly stipulates that a widow, who has remarried her deceased husband''s brother and continues to live a communal life and contributes to the support of other dependants of her deceased husband, shall not be disqualified for the grant of extraordinary pension, otherwise admissible to her under Civil Service Rules.

In the instant case, a perusal of Annexure R-2 written by the petitioner to the Administrative Officer, Punjab Mandi Board dated 25.07.2001 clearly shows that she has solemnized her marriage with the younger brother of her deceased husband. The petitioner is also supporting four children born out of her wedlock with her deceased husband. Although, the petitioner has averred in this writ petition that she has not contracted a marriage with the brother of her deceased husband and has only entered into an arrangement and continues to live a communal life with the family of her deceased husband, but this averment seems to be an afterthought in order to protect her family pension. The remarriage of a widow with the younger brother of her deceased husband entitles her for the grant of family pension in terms of rule 8.35(2)(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 2, Chapter VIII and hence, the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the General Manager (Accounts) (Annexure P-1) holding that petitioner is not entitled to family pension and further ordering recovery from the petitioner for the amount already paid to her as family pension, cannot be sustained.

Resultantly we quash Annexure P-1 and hold that the petitioner is entitled to family pension. We further hold that the respondents are not entitled to recover the family pension already paid to the petitioner.

Writ petition allowed."

Similar opinion has been expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Amrit Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur''s case (Supra). The, judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Kiran Kumari''s case (supra) also would support his contention where it has been held that there is no prohibition for grant of family pension to a widow of deceased who has remarried and particularly in the same family as in the present case. The facts in the present case is pari materia to the one as found in Kiran Kumari''s case (supra). Petitioner is held entitled to the grant of family pension. However, since the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay, the arrears of family pension is restricted to three year and two months prior to the date of filing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 10th of May, 2013. The arrears be released to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

The writ petition stands disposed of.