Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anita Devi Widow Of Satyabir Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 16 September, 2009
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.14355 of 2009 :1:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 16.09.2009
Anita Devi widow of Satyabir Singh,Sepoy
No.3176682-Sep-IIJAT C/o 56 APO. ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms.Ranjana Shahi, Advocate and
Mr.SK Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Sepoy Satyabir Singh No.3176682 SEP-II JAT was serving in the army and died on 03.02.1988 during service. The petitioner was granted ordinary family pension of Rs.375/- per month from 4th February, 1988, but the same was stopped later on the ground that the petitioner has performed Karewa in the form of Chader Andazi with the real brother of the deceased. It is alleged that the petitioner is looking after the complete family of the deceased husband including his old parents. The karewa was performed due to social security and custom of the family. The petitioner made various representations and legal notice claiming the family pension of her deceased but to no avail. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has fled the present writ petition claiming family pension.
CWP No.14355 of 2009 :2:
It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6304 of 1996 (Smt.Kamlajit Kaur Vs. Union of India and others) on 25.02.1997 wherein the following observations/directions have been made:-
"Petitioner widow of Malkit Singh, married with the brother of the deceased. This fact is admitted in the written statement. In such a situation the relevant Rule that applies to the case in hand is Rule 219 of Section 2of Service Pension and Gratuity. That Rule states that " A relative specified in regulation 216 shall be eligible for the grant of family pension". Widow is one mentioned in Regulation 216. Thus, it is beyond controversy that widow is entitled to pension under Rule 219. That Rule further states that if the widow re- marries her deceased husband's brother and continues to live a common life with and/ or contributes to the support of the other living eligible heirs the continues to be entitled to family pension. In this case petitioner remarried deceased's brother. She is maintaining the son born to her through the deceased Sepoy. Thus, petitioner continues to have a right to get the CWP No.14355 of 2009 :3: family pension. That family pension was denied to her from May, 1994. The said action on the part of the respondents was illegal. So respondents are directed to pay the entire arrears, of pension due to the petitioner within a month from today. If the entire arrears are not paid within one month, as stated above, that entire arrears will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the expiry of period of one month till the date of actual payment. We direct the respondents to continue to disburse the family pension due to petitioner regularly month by month.
Petition is allowed as indicated above. Since respondents have raised all cantankerous contentions in the written statement filed in this case, we feel that it is a fit case where they are to be mulcted with costs. Respondents are directed to pay the costs of petition including Advocate's fee of Rs.2000/-".
The above observations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner is entitled to the same relief. No costs.
16.09.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI)
BLS JUDGE
CWP No.14355 of 2009 :4:
Note : Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO