REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1686 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 05, 2010 Pritam Kaur .....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. H. S. Saggu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent Nos.4 and 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. As is usually noticed, death of an employee leads to litigation between the mother and wife of the deceased employee to make claim to retiral benefits and other dues of deceased employee. Constable Kuldip Singh died on 11.3.2000. His mother, Pritam Kaur, filed a suit seeking declaration that she is entitled to 1/3rd share in pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits and also the pay and allowances and other benefits of the deceased employee. She REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1686 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: claimed all these arrears alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The appellant-plaintiff also claimed share in movable and immovable property and the financial benefits becoming available. The appellant would also claim that she was dependent upon her late son. The wife and the child, however, made a claim for full pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. Even the provisions of the Rules, which dis-entitled the appellant to lay a claim on the retiral benefit was challenged being illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-virus. The respondent-defendants, however, would dispute this claim made by the appellant and would say that she did not have any cause. They would also plead that the plaint was liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It was also stated that the appellant was owning movable and immovable property in her name and as such, was not dependent upon the deceased son. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:- “i. whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to the effect that she is entitled for 1/3rd share in pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits and also pay and allowance and other financial benefits of deceased? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restrained the defendants No.4 & 5 from getting the payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits and financial benefits of the plaintiff? OPP iii.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD iv.Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD v. Whether no notice under Section 80 CPC was served? REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1686 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: OPD vi.Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC? OPD vii.Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit. Same was the fate of the appeal and, thus, the present Regular Second Appeal was filed. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the provisions of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II have been struck down and the parents are now held entitled to the benefits as a member of the family of the deceased. In this regard, he has taken support from State of Punjab Vs. Kharak Singh Kang, 1998 (1) SCT 556. The Courts below have rightly distinguished this case. In Kharak Singh Kang's case (supra), the issue being considered by the Court was in the background of the entitlement of the parents of unmarried deceased employee who had been excluded from the definition of `family' under Rule 6.1. The Court has held that in the absence of widow of children, parents could not be excluded from the definition of `family' especially so when they were dependent on the deceased employee. The question under consideration in the present case would be if the parents are entitled to claim family pension of the deceased employee when he leaves behind a widow and children, who admittedly would be dependent on him. In addition, the appellate Court has appreciated the evidence in this case to conclude that the parents were not dependent upon the deceased employee as they had independent income. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1686 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: The dependent parents are considered to be part of the family only when employee had neither left a widow or a child behind. On the basis of this rule, the Court has rightly taken a view that the appellant is not entitled to any pensionary or retiral benefits of the deceased Constable. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant are without merit and deserves to be dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. April 05, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE