1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11451 of 1992. Date of Decision: 28.1.2010 *** Miss. Chander Rekha Jindal .. Petitioner VS. The State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The father of the petitioner, while serving as Assistant Dental Surgeon with the respondent-State, died in harness on 13.2.1974, leaving behind the petitioner, when she was just two years old, as his alone legal representative and her mother was stated to have already expired on 1.2.1973. Her claim for family pension was declined by the competent authority, leading to the institution of the present writ petition. The sole ground taken for declining the family pension to the petitioner is that since her father, prior to his death had not served the Department continuously for five years, as required under the Family Pension Rules, 1964, therefore, she was rightly declined the sought relief. On the other hand, the petitioner staked her claim for family pension while relying upon Rule 6,17(2)(i) and (ii) of the Civil Service Rules Volume-II (hereinafter referred as CSR, for brevity), as applicable to the State of Haryana, according to which only one year continuous service is required for making the survivor of the Govt. employee who dies in harness, entitled for family pension. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book carefully. 2 The issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. Rule 6.17 CSR clearly envisages that the family of the Govt. employee who dies in harness is entitled to the benefit of family pension. The Rule further says that the Govt. employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service, without break. The learned State counsel has not been able to show any Rule contrary to it debarring the petitioner from the claim of family pension. This issue was under consideration in the case of Chhano Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr. 1992(2) Recent Services Judgments 476, wherein the similar plea that he had not rendered continuous service of 5 years was taken by the State, but the same was rejected while relying upon the provisions of Rule 6.12(2)(i) and (ii) of CSR. No contrary judgment has been referred by the learned State counsel. In view of this, the instant writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of family pension to the petitioner from the date when the said relief is actually available to her till Rules of CSR permit her entitlement to the benefit of family pension. It is stated that the petitioner has now become major. Therefore, the arrears of the family pension due be paid to her along with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of 3 months. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 28 ,2010 Jiten