Tej Kaur vs The State of Punjab and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is unsuccessful plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal.

Briefly put, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration pleading that Manjit Singh, her son, who was working as Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, died on 18.6.1982 leaving behind plaintiff his mother and Kirpal Kaur his wife. It is further case of the plaintiff that earlier she filed suit against State of Punjab and others claiming 1/2 share in the emoluments of Manjit Singh deceased and this suit was decreed on 23rd of August, 1984. Consequently, she became entitled to half share in the arrears of pay, family pension, provident fund etc. and the other half share was ordered to be paid to Smt. Kirpal Kaur, his wife. Admittedly, she had been getting half of the pension amount till the filing of the present suit. This suit was necessitated as Smt. Kirpal Kaur remarried and so the plaintiff has laid claim that on account of her marriage, she is entitled to claim full amount of the family pension according on the death of Manjit Singh. Hence this suit.

Defendant No. 3 did not put in appearance and was proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement taking preliminary objections with regard to limitation and jurisdiction of the Court. On merits, it was contended that in fact the plaintiff does not come within the purview of Rule 6.17 of Punjab Services Rules Vol. II and so the plaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. However, it was explained by the defendants that they had been paying half amount of the family pension to the plaintiff in view of the earlier decree of the Court dated 23rd of August, 1984. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP.

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for, OPP.

Whether the suit was barred by time ? OPD.

Whether this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as Manjit Singh was posted at Patiala ? OPD.

Relief.

Trial Court after discussing the evidence led by the parties found no merit in the pleas raised by the plaintiff and so decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 was decided against the defendants, holding that suit is within limitation. Issue No. 4 was also decided against the defendants. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

Before the appellate Court the matter was once again examined on facts and law. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel to the fact that since the appellant had become entitled to half share in the Family Pension and now on account of remarriage of Kirpal Kaur, she is also entitled to the remaining half, for the reasons that on re-marriage, of Kripal Kaur, she has ceased to be an heir and entitled to claim family pension and this way the judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be reversed.

Lower Appellate Court after referring to the provisions contained in Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II re-affirmed the conclusion of the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim one half share of Smt. Kirpal Kaur as there is no rule that on her remarriage, the same is liable to be paid to the plaintiff. Resultantly, the appeal too was dismissed by the Additonal Distict Judge, Patiala.

Before me almost identical picas have, been pressed which did not and favour with the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-ap-pellant is support of his contention drew my attention to the provisions contained in Rule 6.16-B of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, and urged that as per this rule, mother is also included in the definition of family for the purposes of Gratuity and Pension and since the wife of the deceased has remarried, the appellant alone comes within the list of relatives given in Rules 6.16-B. This way Courts below erred in law in declining the claim of the plaintiff. Further arguing, counsel urged that though as per Rule 6.17 which deals with the Family Pension Scheme, mother is not shown to be one of the persons entitled to claim Family Pension, but in view of Rules 6.16 referred to above, it would be reasonable to infer that persons mentioned in Rule 6.16-B are entitled to claim their share in the Family Pension. It is precisely for this reason that the plaintiffs earlier claim for pension was decreed by the Court. Since admittedly, Smt. Kirpal Kaur remarried, the appellant alone becomes entitled to the whole of the Family Pension in case both the provisions of the Rules cited above, are construed harmoniously. In support of his contention, Counsel relied upon Kharak Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab,1 1990 PAP 128 in which it was held that the father and mother are also inclded in the definition of family under Rule 6.16 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II.

Under Rule 6.17, ''Family'' for the purposes of Scheme include only the family relatives of the Government employee:-

i) Wife in the case of a male Government employee and husband in case of a female Government employee;

ii) a judicially separated wife or husband and such separation being not granted on the ground of adultery etc;

iii) minor sons and

iv) Unmarried daughters below the age of 21 years.

This rule further stipulates that penion is admissible in the case of a widow or widower upto the date of death or re-marriage, which ever is earlier. Examined in the context of specific provisions contained in Rule 6.17 with regard to claim in respect of Family Pension, it is clear that the mother is not one of the persons entitled to claim such a pension. However, in the instant case, the plaintiff claimed half share in the Family Pension of Manjit Singh deceased as the same was decreed on 23rd of August, 1984 and it is on the basis of this decree that the plaintiff is getting half share in the pension, Kirpal Kaur, who had also been awarded half share in the Family Pension, has now remarried. As per Rule 6.17(4) such is only admissible till the death of the widow or her-re-marriage which-ever is earlier. This way the pension of Smt. Kirpal Kaur was rightly forfeited by the State. There is no provision in the Rules by which it could be deduced that on the marriage of Kirpal Kaur, her share in the pension can now be claimed by the appellant. The decision in Kharak Singh''s case (supra) has no bearing on the points in controversy as in the instant case, the appellant has already been cinsidered to be entitled to pension in view of the decree of the Civil Court. The appeal is thus devoid of any merit and consequently the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.