Regular Second Appeal No.1930 of 2009 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 23, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.1930 of 2009 (O & M ) Parveen Kumari alias Parveen Preet Kaur ….Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Amaninder Preet, , Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.5. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court whereby judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of Regular Second Appeal No.1930 of 2009 (O & M ) the plaintiff-appellant for declaration and permanent injunction were set aside; thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. I have heard Mr. Amaninder Preet, , Advocate, appearing for the appellant, Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.5 and have gone through the records of the case. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant, after her remarriage with the brother of her late husband, is entitled to receive the family pension or not. For the reasons to be given hereinafter, this question has to be answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff-appellant is Assistant Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police. Her husband, Harjinder Singh, who was Inspector in Punjab Police, expired on 1.12.1996. After the death of Harjinder Singh, the plaintiff-petitioner was released family pension. On 18.2.2002, the plaintiff performed second marriage with Mukhtiar Singh, who is younger brother of the late husband of plaintiff, namely, Inspector Harjinder Singh. The department stopped the family pension of the plaintiff from 18.2.2002 i.e the date when she performed second marriage with the brother of her late husband. The plaintiff challenged this action of the department by filing the instant suit, which was decreed by the trial Court. However, on appeal by the department, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and thereby dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Regular Second Appeal No.1930 of 2009 (O & M ) Without dilating upon the issue at hand, a reference to Rule 8.35 (2)(iv)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (for short `the Rules’) will clinch the matter. Rule 8.35 (2)(iv)(b) provides that a widow who re-marries her deceased husband’s brother and continues to live a communal life with or contributes to the support of other dependents of her late husband shall not be disqualified for the grant of extraordinary pension otherwise admissible to her under the Rules. No doubt, Rule 6.17 (4) of the Rules provides that the pension will be admissible in the case of a widow or widower up to the date of death or remarriage which is earlier, but in view of the specific provision of Rule 8.35 (2)(iv)(b) of the Rules, detailed above, the case of the plaintiff will be covered by Rule 8.35 (2)(iv)(b) of the Rules and Rule 6.17 (4) of the Rules will not be applicable. The question involved is, therefore, answered in favour of the plaintiff- appellant and she is held entitled to continue to receive the family pension after her remarriage with the brother of her late husband. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds. The same is, accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court are restored. Dated: February 23,2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE