RAM DULARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a widow of an ex -employee of the respondent State, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 17.7.2007 (P -7) passed by the Director General of Police -respondent No. 2, whereby her claim for grant of 50% share of the family pension given to the minor children, who are born out of the wedlock of her husband with one Sona Devi. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction to grant her family pension with all consequential benefits and also for declaring clause 4(iii) Note (i) of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (for brevity, 'the Pension Scheme') as ultra vires of the Constitution.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner Shri Mehar Singh, who was working in the Police Department, Haryana, as Assistant Sub Inspector, died in harness on 27.8.1980. He had rendered more than 17 years of service on the date of his death. Shri Mehar Singh was first married to one Sona Devi, who had died during his life time. Out of the wedlock with Smt. Sona Devi, Shri Mehar Singh had three children, namely, Raj Singh, Manju Rani and Braham Singh, whose date of birth are 5.1.1972, 20.3.1974 and 13.5.1976 respectively. After the death of Smt. Sona Devi, he married Smt. Ram Dulari -petitioner. Out of the wedlock of Shri Mehar Singh and the petitioner one son, namely, Shri Megh Raj was born on 8.12.1980.

(3.) IN response to notice of motion, respondent Nos. l to 6 have filed a joint written statement. The broad factual matrix have not been disputed. However, reliance has been placed on clause 4(I) note (1) of Appendix -1 of the 'Pension Scheme', which contemplate that where an officer is survived by more than one widow then pension is to be paid to them in equal share. After the death of widow, her share is to be paid to her eligible minor child. In case a widow does not leave any minor child then the payment of her share of pension would cease. It has, thus, been claimed that after the other widow or her minor child has stopped enjoying 50% of the pension then the aforesaid share would not be payable to anyone including the person like the petitioner.