GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to note 2 to rule 6.27 sub-rule (3) of the Punjab Family Pension Rules of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II which in turn does not recognise marriage after retirement.

(2.) Brief facts of the case that constrained petitioner Gurdial Singh to challenge note 2 to rule 6.27 sub-rule(3) need a brief mention. Petitioner joined as a constable in Punjab Police in 1948. He was married with one Satyawati and out of this wedlock two sons and one daughter were born who are presently married and settled. The wife of the petitioner, however, died on 21.1.1980 and on 1.3.1986 the petitioner superannuated from the post of Head Constable that he was holding in the Haryana Police. Before his superannuation, he rendered 38 years of service. In January, 1994, the petitioner married one Chhinder Kaur, stated to be a widow as her first husband died. In the same very year the petitioner informed his employer for changing the name for the purpose of family pension and thus, incorporating the name of his wife Chhinder Kaur. The Superintendent of Police recommended the change of name for the purpose of family pension to Accountant General, Haryana. However, the request of the petitioner was turned down by Accountant General on the basis of note 2 rule 6.27 sub-rule (3).

(3.) Rule 6.17 dealing with the family pension defines family in sub-rule (3) as follows:-