R.S.A. No. 2127 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2127 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.1.2009 Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Yamuna Nagar and others ....Appellants Versus Smt. Raj Rani and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2007 passed by the learned lower appellate Court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 brought a suit for declaration and injunction claiming that she was entitled to service dues of Anil Kumar her deceased son, who died during service. The dispute was between Smt. Raj Rani i.e. widowed mother of Anil Kumar and respondent No. 2 i.e widow of Anil Kumar. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for half of the amount by holding that mother was also required to be included as member of family being class one heir and thus entitled to retiral benefits along with respondent No. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab R.S.A. No. 2127 of 2007 (O&M) -2- and another Vs. Kharak Singh Kang and another, 1998(1) RSJ 412, Single Bench of this Court in Lichhami Devi Vs. State of Haryana, 2001(3) RSJ 675 and Phool Pati Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board (Operation) now re-designated as Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Parsarn Nigam Limited, Hisar, 2002(2) PLR 727 has been pleased to lay down the definition of the 'family' as given in rules to be ultra vires the Constitution as widowed mother who is falling in "Class-1 heir" as per schedule of succession could not be excluded from the family. Two appeals were filed against the judgment and decree, one by State of Haryana and other by respondent No. 1. The State challenged the decree on the plea that the judgment and decree passed is contrary to rules, whereas respondent No. 1 challenged the judgment and decree by claiming full amount on the plea that respondent No. 2 has remarried and, therefore, was not entitled to any benefit. The learned lower appellate Court has been pleased to accept the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, whereas the appeal filed by the State was ordered to be dismissed. Learned Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, has raised the following substantial question of law for decision by this Court: - “Whether the learned Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit by ignoring the rules governing the service conditions of Anil Kumar?” The substantial question of law raised does not arise as the same stands settled by this Court in State of Punjab and another Vs. Kharak Singh Kang and another, 1998(1) RSJ 412, Lichhami Devi Vs. State of Haryana, 2001(3) RSJ 675 and Phool Pati Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board (Operation) now re-designated as Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Parsarn Nigam Limited, Hisar, 2002(2) PLR 727 R.S.A. No. 2127 of 2007 (O&M) -3- holding that mother is also entitled to benefits and once respondent No. 2 has remarried, she could not be treated to be member of the family to claim any amount. Consequenlty, no fault can be found with judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 22, 2009 R.S.