TEJ KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is unsuccessful plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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: