IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2408 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 28, 2011. State of Punjab. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Mohinder Kaur and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Ms. Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab. for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Niti Wadhwa, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 15.04.2006, Annexure P3 and order dated 25.07.2009, Annexure P1 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Amritsar. CR No.2408 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned Executing Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, respondent No.1-Decree Holder, Smt.Mohinder Kaur is mother of deceased-Jagjit Singh, Head Constable, who was killed by some unidentified militants. He was married to respondent No.2 i.e. Baljit Kaur daughter of Gurnam Singh. After death of Jagjit Singh dispute arose between Baljit Kaur and Mohinder Kaur regarding service benefits of Jagjit Singh, deceased. There is no dispute that Baljit Kaur remarried on 26.04.1998. A civil suit filed by Mohinder Kaur-respondent No.1 i.e. mother of deceased against State of Punjab as well as against Baljit Kaur, widow of deceased was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.1999, Annexure P2. Execution petition was filed by respondent No.1 –Decree Holder, Mohinder Kaur pursuant to the said judgment and decree passed in her favour in which the impugned orders were passed. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-State of Punjab is that as per rule 6.17 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II mother is not included in the definition of family for the purpose of family pension. It has been contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1 – mother that the said rule has since been held ultra vires vide judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and another v. Kharak Singh Kang another, 1998(4) SLR 594. It is further contended that moreover no appeal against the judgment and decree was filed by any of the 2 CR No.2408 of 2010 respondents and that the same has become final and hence, no such plea can be taken before learned Executing Court. There is force in the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.1 –decree holder that when no appeal against the judgment and decree has been filed and the same has become final and in view of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Kharak Singh’s case (supra), it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned executing Court in passed the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, in view of these facts, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 28, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3