STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. HARPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab and its officials have filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated July 03, 2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 8115 of 2010) filed by Harpal Kaur (respondent herein) widow of Jit Singh (deceased employee) seeking direction to the respondents to grant her full family pension as admissible in view of the Government Instructions has been disposed of in terms of the Division Bench decision of this Court in CWP No. 3359 of 2008 (Ram Dulari v. State of Haryana and others, decided on July 03, 2009), a copy of which was annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1.

(2.) Though there is a delay of 384 days in filing the appeal and the appellants have filed application (CM No.3189-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits, and have gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. In this case, Jit Singh was an employee of the Punjab Government. He died in harness on February 15, 2004, leaving behind one son from his pre-deceased wife and one son born to respondent Harpal Kaur (the second wife). In accordance with the provisions of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the respondent and son of pre-deceased wife of the deceased employee were granted family pension in equal share. The son of pre-deceased wife of the deceased employee attained the age of 25 years on October 28, 2005 and as per the instructions dated March 07, 2005 (Annexure P-3) issued by the appellants, payment of half share of the family pension was stopped to him with effect from October 29, 2005. At that stage, the respondent moved an application (Annexure P-5) to the Accountant General, Punjab (appellant No.4 herein) for grant of full family pension, in view of Note 1 and 2 of Rule 6.17 of the Rules, which read as under :

(3.) The claim of the respondent was rejected by the appellants on the ground that after attaining the age of 25 years, the right of son of the pre-deceased wife of the deceased employee to draw 50% of the family pension ceased and the said share could not have been granted to the respondent. This interpretation was given by the appellants in view of Note 1 and 2, as quoted above.