State of Punjab and Another vs Surjit Kaur

J.S. Khehar, J.—The respondent in the instant appeal namely Surjit Kaur approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 7644 of 1999 claiming family pension. The claim made by the respondent was accepted when the learned Single Judge allowed the Civil Writ Petition No. 7644 of 1999. The order dated 18.5.2005 is the subject matter of challenge through the instant appeal preferred by the State Government.

The solitary conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge while accepting the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein was that there was no statutory rule on the basis of which family pension can be denied to a dependent where the original employee had been convicted. It is, therefore, that we inquired from the learned Counsel for the appellants to even now invite our attention to the statutory rule under which family pension could have been denied to respondent Surjit Kaur on account of conviction of her husband Manmohan Singh. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, could not invite our attention to the statutory rule under the family pension scheme.

It would be pertinent to mention that learned Counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, which has been extracted at page 17 of the instant appeal. The aforesaid rule is reproduced hereunder:

Removal from public service for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass an examination will entail forfeiture of past service.

Having gone through the provision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the same has no applicability to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order dated 18.5.2005 disposing of Civil Writ Petition No. 7644 of 1999.

Dismissed.