BALWANT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the widow of a Headmaster by the name of Mukhtiar Singh. He served the Punjab Government, first as a teacher and then as Headmaster for almost 32 years till he died on March 5, 1985. He was drawing salary of Rs. 1,580.20 at the time of his death. The petitioner being his widow claims, family pension in accordance with the provisions of rule 6.17 of the Punjab Services Rules, Volume II. Thereunder, family pension benefits are admissible to the family of the deceased employee. And the widow is entitled to a family pension upto the date of her death or remarriage, whichever is earlier.

(2.) The petitioner claims that family pension was sanctioned by the State of Punjab and she was accordingly informed on November 14, 1985, that such pension had been sanctioned and that she could get payment from the Treasury Officer, Faridkot, respondent No. 2. This is evident from the letter of the Accountant General, Punjab, dated November 14, 1985. When the letter was not obeyed and she stood deprived of the family pension by the indifference of the respondents, she moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.

(3.) Both the respondents have filed returns. They do not deny that the petitioner is entitled to family pension but claim that since the government dues are outstanding against 'the petitioner's husband those have to be adjusted against the claims of pension, gratuity and provident fund etc. The said dues, they claim, are on account of an embezzlement case initiated by the department against the petitioner's husband. The said sum is said to be to the tune of Rs. 1,13,135.70. Death of the husband of the petitioner obviously has scuttled the proceedings against him in the embezzlement case.