IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.273 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.3.2010 The State of Haryana and others. -----Appellants Vs. Shanti Devi & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing the appellants to continue family pension granted to respondent No.1 on death of her husband. The same was stopped on the ground that she remarried. 2. Husband of respondent No.1 was working in the Irrigation Department of the State of Haryana and died on 25.2.1982. She was given family pension which continued upto October 2003 and the same was stopped on account of allegation that she had remarried. Respondent No.1 denied the allegation and alternatively submitted that even if she remarried, this could not be a ground to stop the family pension. Since her claim was not accepted, writ petition was filed. 3. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that no inquiry was held on the complaint that she had remarried LPA No.273 of 2010 and in any case, in view of judgment of this Court in Kiran Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 2003(3) RSJ 283, remarriage could be no ground to stop family pension. Even the State of Haryana had issued instructions in the year 2009 that remarriage will not result in forfeiture of family pension unless the widow had independent income. Learned Single Judge also referred to similar provisions of Pension Regulations. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Only contention raised is that instructions issued by the State of Haryana are not retrospective and thus, for the period prior thereto, family pension could have been withheld. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Under the Scheme of the Rules applicable even prior to the year 2009, view had been taken by this Court in Kiran Kumar (supra) that on remarriage, family pension could be granted. It is not the case of the appellants that the said judgment was not applicable to the present case. 7. This being the position, no ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 02, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2