IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3176 of 2008 Date of Order: 03.10.2008 State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Raj Rani ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab, for the appellants. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Punjab, challenges the judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, dated 12.09.2007 and the District Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 03.06.2008, decreeing respondent's suit for family pension and dismissing State's appeal. The respondent is admittedly the widow of one Shri Lal, who died in harness. Apart from departmental benefits she was also granted family pension. However, after June, 2002 the family pension was abruptly stopped, without assigning any reason. The respondent, therefore, filed a suit impugning the stoppage of family pension. The appellants opposed this prayer by asserting that the family pension was stopped by the concerned bank. During the course of their evidence, however they altered their stance and relied upon an unsigned complaint filed by the respondent's mother-in-law and certain enquiries allegedly conducted to assert that as the respondent had re-married she was not entitled to family pension. This evidence was ruled out of consideration by the courts below as beyond pleadings and inherently unreliable as the complaint was unsigned and the enquiry reports were not proved in accordance with law. Regular Second Appeal No. 3176 of 2008 -2- Counsel for the appellants submits that as the respondent has re- married, she is not entitled to receive family pension. The above assertion could have been accepted if the appellants had raised such a plea in their written statement. As held by the first appellate Court no such plea was raised, by the appellants, in their written statement. Even otherwise, the unsigned complaint and the unsubstantiated enquiries, which were ruled out of consideration by the courts below are insufficient to hold that the respondent has remarried. Even otherwise, before proceeding to stop family pension, no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to put forth her defence against the allegation that she has remarried I find no error of jurisdiction or of law, as would require interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the appellants would be at liberty, if deemed appropriate to conduct a fresh enquiry into the allegation that the respondent has remarried. October 3, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE