IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19017 of 2006. [O&M] Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2010. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur Petitioner through Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner is widow of Teja Singh, who was a Class-IV employee working in the office of the Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Ludhiana. Teja Singh was placed under suspension on 17.12.1992 on account of his involvement in a case FIR No. 202 dated 21.10.1992, under Section 392 IPC, registered at Police Station, Focal Point, Ludhiana, in which he earned acquittal vide judgment dated 6.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. He was thereafter reinstated in service vide order dated 24.4.2001 [Annexure P-4]. Respondent No. 2 passed yet another order dated 4.4.2002 [Annexure P-5] for regularization of the suspension period of Teja Singh, the operative part of which reads as follows:- “Vide this order, the suspension period of the employee from 17.12.1992 to 26.4.2001 is treated on duty only for pensionary benefits and this employee will not get any thing more that what he had been receiving as suspension allowance during the suspension period”. Teja Singh unfortunately died on 7.8.2002 while in service. The petitioner though has been granted family pension, however, her grievance is that the suspension period of her husband w.e.f. 17.12.1992 to 26.4.2001 has not been taken into consideration as his qualifying service for the purposes of pensionary benefits. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. The facts are broadly not in dispute. It emerges during the course of hearing that though the suspension period of the deceased employee has been counted towards the total length of service but nothing has been paid to the deceased employee for the said period and for that reason alone, it was not taken into consideration for the fixation of his pay, resulting into the grant of family pension at a reduced rate. To be more precise, no annual increment was granted to the deceased employee for the suspension period and as a result thereto, the family pension has not been fixed on the basis of the total emoluments which the deceased employee would have drawn had he been granted the annual increments for the suspension period, i.e., 17.12.1992 to 26.04.2001. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that vide order dated 4.4.2002 [Annexure P-5], the respondents have already treated the suspension period as “spent on duty” for the pensionary purposes, therefore, the said period has to be taken into account for the purpose of notional pay fixation also. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the deceased employee notionally by taking into account the 'suspension period' as the period “spent on duty” and the family pension admissible to the petitioner be accordingly revised. Let the needful be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Dasti. March 22, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE