R.S.A. No. 3839 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3839 of 2007 Date of Decision : 22.01.2009 Punjab State and others ....Appellants Versus Raj Rani ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. N.S.Virk, addl.Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. D.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is defendants' appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 23.2.2004 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 17.8.2007. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the appellants to calculate and make the payment and sanction the family pension. It was pleaded that her husband died while in harness and thereafter she married the younger brother of the deceased as per customs by way of Chadar Andazi on 20.1.1997 and therefore she was entitled to the extraordinary family pension under Rule 8.35(2)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). R.S.A. No. 3839 of 2007 -2- The appellant No.3 denied the claim of the respondent although it was pleaded that the District Treasury Officer, Gurdaspur had already been intimated vide letter dated 7.6.2001 to make the payment of family pension to Rahul son of Yash Pal through natural guardian, i.e. the plaintiff/respondent. Appellants No.1 and 2 took up the objection that the plaintiff/respondent had no locus standi to file the suit. It was admitted that the Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 15.4.93 had issued an authority letter in favour of the plaintiff/respondent against PPO No.29133/S/Pb. w.e.f. 22.2.1993. The respondent was paid regular pension upto July 2000 but a complaint was filed by Dayal Singh of village Sohal that the plaintiff/respondent had got married with Ashok Kumar and therefore the pension was required to be terminated. The pension was thereafter stopped for want of further directions from Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh. However, the Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh further clarified that family pension could be transferred to her son through natural guardian till he attains the age of 25 years or start earning his livelihood whichever was earlier. The case of transfer of family pension in favour of Raj Rani after her remarriage was taken up with the Accountant General Punjab, Chandigarh under various communications. But the Accountant General Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 7.6.2001 intimated that her case did not fall under Rule 8.35(2)(a)(b) of the Rules and it relates to extraordinary pension. It was further averred that since Raj Rani was allowed ordinary pension and as such family pension after her remarriage could not be transferred to her. Remaining averments were R.S.A. No. 3839 of 2007 -3- denied being incorrect. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD 4. Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action?OPD 5. Relief. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that under the provisions of Rule 8.35(i)(a) the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to extraordinary pension. Learned counsel for the appellants refers to Rule 6.17(4) of the Rules to contend that if a widow remarries the family pension is liable to be stopped. Rule 6.17(4) is reproduced as below :- “(4) The pension will be admissible -- (i) (a) in the case of widow or widower up to the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier. (b) in the case of minor son, until he attains the age of 18 years. (c) in the case of a unmarried daughter until she attains the age of 21 years or is married, whichever is earlier.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. Rule 6.17(4) contemplates the grant of family R.S.A. No. 3839 of 2007 -4- pension to a widow and the minor son. It also contemplates that the family pension is to be stopped once the widow re-marries. Rule 8.35 however, goes on to clarify that if a widow re-marries the brother of her deceased husband then in such an eventuality she shall not be disqualified for the grant of extraordinary family pension otherwise admissible to her under the rules. The logic of this rule has been expressed in the rule itself as the widow continues to live a communal life with the deceased's family and contributes to the support of other dependants of her deceased husband. Rule 8.35 is also reproduced as under :- “8.35. (1) A family pension will take effect from the day following the death of the Government employee or from such other date as the competent authority may decide. (2) A family pension will ordinarily be tenable - (a) (i) in the case of widow or mother until death or re-marriage whichever occurs earlier; (ii) in the case of a minor son, or minor brother, until he attains the age of 18; (iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter or minor sister, until marriage or until she attains the age of 21, whichever occurs earlier; (iv) in the case of a father, for life. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- clause- (a) a widow who re-marries her deceased husband's brother and continues to live a R.S.A. No. 3839 of 2007 -5- communal life with or contributes to the support of other dependants of her deceased husband shall not be disqualified for the grant of extraordinary pension otherwise admissible to her under these rules.” In this view of the matter, when the rule is unambiguous, the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered with. Dismissed. 22.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss