Regular Second Appeal No. 326 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 326 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.4.2009 *** State of Haryana & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Indrawati .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana. Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendants' second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below vide which they have been directed to release the family pension of deceased Kashmir Singh to the plaintiff, the mother of the deceased. The only grouse of the appellant is that there is no provision in the Family Pension Scheme 1964 to grant family pension to the mother of the deceased employee, especially when widow is surviving and even otherwise mother has not been included in the family, entitling the plaintiff to get the said benefit of family pension. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of appeal would arise. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that deceased Kashmir Singh who was working as JBT Teacher expired on 13.3.2004, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.4, the widow as the only legal representatives. Pooja-defendant No.4 not only waived off her claim to the family pension Regular Second Appeal No. 326 of 2009 2 and asserted no objection for releasing the same in favour of the plaintiff, but also solemnized second marriage. The intent of the Legislature while enacting the provisions of Family Pension to the dependents of deceased employee, was to save them from starvation. In catena of judgments including State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Kharak Singh & Anr. 1998(1) RSJ 412 followed in the cases of Phool Pati Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Another 2002(3) RSJ 769, Jaswinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2001(4) RSJ 505 it has been held by this Court that mother too falls within the definition of “family” and entitled to the family pension and rule of exclusion of parents of deceased government employee from the concept of family have no rationale and is arbitrary. There should remain no hitch with the Department in the backdrop of swearing of an affidavit by the widow of the deceased giving up her claim in respect of service benefits, including family pension of the deceased, in favour of plaintiff. Thus, the Courts below rightly held the plaintiff entitled to the family pension. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Therefore, the appeal does not deserve to be admitted being devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 17,2009 Jiten