CWP No. 5816 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5816 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.03.2011 Satnam Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. BPS Virk, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for release of the family pension to the petitioner No.1 which has become payable on the death of one Baldev Singh, husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2. A brief resume of the essential facts may be made for a better appreciation of the issues involved. Late Baldev Singh, who was an employee of PWD (B&R) Branch, Government of Punjab, died leaving behind two wives i.e. petitioner No.1 Satnam Kaur and the respondent No.4 CWP No. 5816 of 2008 [2] Surinder Kaur. After the death of Baldev Singh, a civil suit was instituted in the Civil Court by the respondent No.4 Surinder Kaur against the Petitioner No.1 Satnam Kaur seeking certain reliefs. Eventually, the dispute between the parties was settled by means of compromise dated 27.01.2007 which is in the following terms:- i) That out of the amounts of G.P.F.,G.I.S, Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity, Ex-Gratia grant, Leave Encashment, pay for December, 2001 and family pensions, ` 40000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) would be given to plaintiff No.4 Smt. Naram Kaur, who is mother of Baldev Singh. Plaintiff No.2 Gurdip Singh and Plaintiff No.3 Mandeep Kaur on one side and defendant No.1 Smt. Satnam Kaur and defendant No.2 Amandeep Kaur on the other side, would be entitled to get the balance outstanding amounts in equal shares. ii) Plaintiff No.2 Gurdeep Singh and plaintiff No.2 Mandeep Kaur would be entitled to service on compassionate basis in PWD (B&R) Branch. Party No.1 can get employed any of these children in the department on compassionate basis. Satnam Kaur and Amandeep Kaur, defendants shall have no objection in this regard. iii) Defendant No.2 Smt. Satnam Kaur would be entitled for pension in lieu of the service of Baldev Singh and she would receive the same as per the rules of the Department. The plaintiff party shall have no objection in this regard. Therefore, the above said compromise has been effected. The contents have been read over and heard and the signatures/thumb marks have been affixed in the presence of witnesses so that it CWP No. 5816 of 2008 [3] may serve as an authority. Dated: 27.01.2007.” The civil suit in question bearing No. 274/1/26.3.2002 was decreed on 27.01.2007 in terms of the aforesaid compromise arrived at by and between the parties by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala sitting as a Lok Adalat. The aforesaid compromise between the parties was marked as Exhibit-CX. In terms of the aforesaid compromise, Gurdeep Singh son of the respondent No.4 Surinder Kaur was appointed in Government service on compassionate ground. The amount due under G.P.F., G.I.S, Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity, Ex-Gratia grant, Leave Encashment, pay for December, 2001 etc. was also apportioned in terms of the compromise by and between the parties. However, the pension which under the compromise became due to Satnam Kaur (petitioner No.1) could not be paid in view of the provisions of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rule Vol.II. in as much as Note-I to the said rule provides that if a Government employee is survived by more than one widow, pension would be paid to both the widows in equal shares. Withholding of the payment of pension by the respondents, in the aforementioned circumstances, gave rise to this writ petition seeking the reliefs earlier noticed. At the hearing of the writ petition learned counsel for the respondent No.4 (Surinder Kaur) has contended that in terms of Clause(1) of the compromise dated 27.01.2007 even family pension is required to be apportioned between the two widows as recited in the compromise deed and, therefore, there would be no justification for CWP No. 5816 of 2008 [4] this Court to pass any order for payment of the entire pension amount in favour of the writ petitioner No.1, namely, Satnam Kaur. Learned counsel has also pointed out that in any event the compromise between the parties being contrary to the statutory rules it is the statutory rules which must be enforced. At the out out, Clause-1 of the compromise arrived at by and between the parties, details of which has already been extracted, will have to be understood and explained by the Court in its true perspective. Under the aforesaid Clause-I, all the amounts due under G.P.F.,G.I.S, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Ex-Gratia grant, Leave Encashment, pay for December, 2001 etc. are required to be apportioned in the manner indicated in the said clause of the compromise. The amounts due under all or any of the aforesaid heads are quantifiable amounts. The use of the word 'Family Pension” in clause-I which is also required to be apportioned, naturally, has to be understood to be family pension accruing till the date of the compromise. It is only that part of the family pension that would be governed by the apportionment contemplated by Clause-I. This is because Clause (3) of the compromise which contemplates the entitlement of the petitioner No.1 Satnam Kaur to pension also has to be given a reasonable and rational meaning and its due effect. If that be so there can be no difficulty in understanding that under the compromise recorded by and between the parties the petitioner No.1 would be entitled to the entire of the family pension following the date of the compromise i.e. 27.01.2007. CWP No. 5816 of 2008 [5] In so far as Note-I Rule 6.17 is concerned, undoubtedly, the apportionment of pension provided by the said provision of the Rules is a beneficial provision which takes care of a possible dispute between the two wives following death of their husband. However, reading the aforesaid Note (1) to the Rules we do not find that the said provision impose any embargo on a party entitled, to waive or relinquish his/her rights conferred by the Rules. The compromise by which the entire family pension is to go to the petitioner No.1, Satnam Kaur, has to be understood to be an expression of such a waiver or relinquishment made in favour of petitioner Satnam Kaur by the other parties to the compromise. If the statutory rules do not prohibit the exercise of the right of waiver or relinquishment there is no reason why the concerned authority should feel debarred from disbursing the pension to the petitioner No.1 alone. We, therefore, direct such authority to act accordingly and disburse the family pension, arrears w.e.f.27.01.2007 and current family pension in favour of the petitioner No.1 (Satnam Kaur). Writ petition consequently is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 10.03.2011 'ravinder'