Regular Second Appeal No. 2210 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2210 of 2008 Date of Order: 06.07.2009 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Shanti Devi ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, D.A.G.,Haryana for the appellants Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the respondent RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Haryana challenges judgments and decrees dated 27.04.2006 and 25.03.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak and the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Rohtak, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal. The dispute in brief relates to the family pension payable to the family of Lakhmi Chand. Admittedly, a family pension was granted to Shanti Devi widow of Lakhmi Chand. However, pursuant to an order dated 27.03.2001, the pension was reduced by one half on the ground that Shanti Devi was his second wife. Shanti Devi filed a suit for declaration praying that the order reducing the family pension is null and void as she was married to Lakhmi Chand, after the demise of his first wife Ranti Devi and, therefore, could not be denied the complete family pension. The appellants opposed the prayer Regular Second Appeal No. 2210 of 2008 -2- by pleading that the correct amount of family pension had been paid to Shanti Devi. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1) Whether the impugned order of defendants no.2 to 4 is null and void and plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the amount pending of deceased Lakhmi Chand, as alleged, if so to what effect?OPP 2) Whether the suit is bad for compulsory notice under Section 80 CPC?OPD 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4) Whether the suit is not property valued for the purposes of court fees?OPD 5) Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit with costs, set aside the order Ex.P6 and directed the appellants to release the complete family pension in the name of Shanti Devi. The trial court held that as Lakhmi Chand had performed a second marriage with Shanti Devi after the demise of first wife, Rule 4(III) Note-1 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 was not applicable. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the State of Haryana filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Rohtak, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial courts. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and considered Rule 4(III) Note-1, which reads as follows:- Regular Second Appeal No. 2210 of 2008 -3- “(iii) The pension is admissible; (a) in the case of widow/widower upto the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier and; (b) in the case of minor son/unmarried daughter until he/she attains the age of 25 years. Provided that an unmarried daughter will become ineligible for pension from the date she gets married. Provided further that the son/unmarried daughter shall become ineligible for pension if he or she starts earning livelihood. Note (i) Where an officer is survived by more than one widow, the pension will be paid to them in equal shares. On the death of a widow, her share of the pension will become payable to her eligible minor child. If at the time of her death, a widow leaves no eligible minor child the payment of her share of the pension will cease. (ii) Where an officer is survived by a widow but has left behind an eligible minor child from another wife, the eligible minor child will be paid the share of pension which the mother would have received, if, she had been alive at the time of death of the officer.” Note-1 of the aforementioned rule applies where an officer is survived by two wives and not where the officer remarries after the demise of his first wife. Admittedly, Lakhmi Chand is survived by only one wife, namely, Shanti Devi, whom he married after the demise of his first wife. It, therefore, belies comprehension as to how the respondents reduced the Regular Second Appeal No. 2210 of 2008 -4- family pension payable to Shanti Devi. Counsel for the State of Haryana has failed to advance any worthwhile argument that would detract from the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below much less raise a substantial question of law. The present case is a glaring example of bureaucratic bungling that encourages unnecessary litigation. Dismissed. July 06, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE