Parkash Rani v. State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others
Case Details
2016 (O&M) RSA-2937-2016 (O&M) Sr. No.212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH RSA RSA-2937-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.01.2025 Date of Decision : Parkash Rani …Appellant … Versus State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others …Respondents …Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate, for the appellant. for the appellant. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Additional A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Additional A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Additional A.G., Haryana. LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) LAPITA BANERJI *** for consideration in the present regular The short issue that falls for consideration in the present regular The short issue that second appeal is whether the family pension of a widow, of an employee, second appeal is whether the family pension of a widow second appeal is whether the family pension of a widow whose service conditions are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, whose service conditions are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, whose service conditions are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, will cease on re on re-marriage? 2. The facts which have led to the present regular second appeal The facts which have led to the present regular second appeal are as follows:- i.
Legal Reasoning
The plaintiff’s husband ne Bhajan Dass was employed at FSL The plaintiff’s husband one Bhajan Dass was employed at FSL IV employee. He joined his service on March 20, 1988. Madhuban as a Class-IV employee. He joined his service on March 20, 1988. Madhuban as a C Unfortunately, , he died on May 2, 1989. due to an accident, he died on May 2, 1989. ii. The plaintiff appellant was granted the benefit of family pension. The plaintiff-appellant was granted the benefit of family pension. The plaintiff got re-married on October 19, 1994 and also got divorce The plaintiff g 1994 and also got divorced from her second husband on March 16, 2009. her second husband on March 16, 2009. iii After the plaintiff got married, her minor daughter through her first After the plaintiff got married, her minor daughter through her first husband became eligible for family pension. husband became eligible for family pension. The family pension was duly disbursed to the minor daughter till The family pension was duly disbursed to the minor dau iv The family pension was duly disbursed to the minor dau married on September 15, 2008. such time she got married on September 15, 2008. such time she got VANDANA 2025.02.07 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 5 2016 (O&M) RSA-2937-2016 (O&M) v Upon being granted d ivorce from her second husband on March 16, Upon being granted divorce from her second husband on March 16, 2009, the plaintiff made repeated representations for family pension being 2009, the plaintiff made repeated representations for family pension being 2009, the plaintiff made repeated representations for family pension being granted in her favour. granted in her favour. vi of her marriage with her second husband, the During the tenure of her marriage with her second husband, the During the IV employee at FSL Madhuban as an ex- plaintiff was appointed as a Class-IV employee at FSL Madhuban as an ex plaintiff was appointed as a Class gratia benefit arising due to the death of her husband. gratia benefit arising due to the death of her husband. gratia benefit arising due to the death of her husband. 3. The cause of action in the suit arose out of The in the suit arose out of the plaintiff’s espite all the documents being supplied by her for release of grievance that despite all the documents being supplied by her for release of grievance that d family pension, the same was not done. family pension, the same was not done. 4. respondents herein contested the same The defendants in the suit-respondents herein contested the same The defendants in the suit by filing a written statement. It was argued on behalf of the defendants that by by filing a written statement. It was argued on behalf of the defendants that by by filing a written statement. It was argued on behalf of the defendants that by own act and conduct i.e. by getting remarried, the plaintiff-appellant was own act and conduct i.e. by getting remarried, the plaintiff her own act and conduct i.e. by getting remarried, the plaintiff Since the plaintiff had failed to show ineligible to receive family pension. Since the plaintiff had failed to show ineligible to receive “necessitous circumstances circumstances” and “she is otherwise she is otherwise deserving”, her suit for family pension should be dismissed. Further more, the plaintiff family pension should be Further more, the plaintiff concealed material fact before the trial Court relating her employment as a Class material fact before the her employment as a Class-IV gratia benefit given to her after the death of her first employee as an ex-gratia benefit given to her after the death of her first employee as an ex husband. 5. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated December 7, The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2013 came to the finding that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with 2013 came to the finding that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with 2013 came to the finding that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands as she had concealed the material fact clean hands as she had concealed the material fact of working as ex-gratia IV employee in FSL, Madhuban after the death of her first husband. Class-IV employee in FSL, Madhuban after the death of her first husband. IV employee in FSL, Madhuban after the death of her first husband. 6. It was argued that the concealment was indeed a It was argued tha t the concealment was indeed a material fact because the plaintiff could only claim family pension after her re-marriage due because the plaintiff could only claim family pension after her re because the plaintiff could only claim family pension after her re to “necessitous necessitous circumstances”. Moreover, the plaintiff was . Moreover, the plaintiff was estopped by her own act and conduct, as she had given an affidavit own act and conduct, as she had given an affidavit, for grant of family pension, swearing , swearing that she would not remarry. De that she would not remarry. Despite such affidavit, she got VANDANA 2025.02.07 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 5 2016 (O&M) RSA-2937-2016 (O&M) remarried in the year, the year, 1994. Consequently, it was held that it was held that the plaintiff failed to prove “necessitous necessitous circumstances” or that the or that the other family members were dependent on her and the claim of the plaintiff was dependent on her claim of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. 7. The plaintiff he plaintiff-appellant filed a First A appellant filed a First Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karnal. Vide judgment and order dated November 4, 2015, the District Judge, Karnal. Vide judgment and order dated November 4, 2015, the District Judge, Karnal. Vide judgment and order dated November 4, 2015, the Karnal had dismissed the appeal. It was recorded Additional District Judge, Karnal had dismissed the appeal. It was recorded Additional District Judge, that the plaintiff-appellant did not mention the fact that the plaintiff appellant did not mention the factum of her working as class- IV employee with FSL, Madhuban. Furthermore, it was not disclosed that IV employee with FSL, Madhuban. Furthermore, it was not disclosed that IV employee with FSL, Madhuban. Furthermore, it was not disclosed that whether or not she had any other family member dependent whether or not other family member dependent on her. Therefore, it held that the trial Court did not err in holding it held that the trial Court did not err in holding that the plaintiff was unable to prove “necessitous necessitous circumstances” in her favour or in her favour or the fact that “she was otherwise deserving”. otherwise deserving 8. The First Appellate Court vide the impugned judgmen The First Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated found that there was no illegality, irregularity and November 4, 2015 found that there was no illegality, irregularity and November 4, 2015 perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that both the Courts below erred on t both the Courts below erred on a point of l a point of law. They failed to consider Rule 8.35(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Rule 8.35(1) of t he Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. Since the plaintiff- appellant was divorced in 2009, the family pension should have been granted appellant was divorced in 2009, the family pension should have been granted appellant was divorced in 2009, the family pension should have been granted to her. Furthermore, he submitted that all suppressions cannot be considered to to her. Furthermore, he submitted that all suppressions cannot be consider to her. Furthermore, he submitted that all suppressions cannot be consider be material suppression of fact. Since the plaintiff was working with be material suppression of fact. Si nce the plaintiff was working with FSL, Madhuban, there was no requirement of bringing the said factum on record in Madhuban, there was no requirement of bringing the s Madhuban, there was no requirement of bringing the s filed before the trial Court. the pleadings filed before the trial Court. 10.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that Learned counsel appearing for the Learned counsel appearing for the from material suppression and on that ground alone, the the plaint suffered from material suppression and on that ground alone, the the plaint suffered claim of the plaintiff was correctly rejected by the trial Court and the First claim of the plaintiff was correctly rejected by the trial Court and the First claim of the plaintiff was correctly rejected by the trial Court and the First VANDANA 2025.02.07 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 5 2016 (O&M) RSA-2937-2016 (O&M) Appellate Court. He also submits that the plaintiff was unable to bring herself Appellate Court. He also submits that the plaintiff was unable to brin Appellate Court. He also submits that the plaintiff was unable to brin within the purview of Rule 8.35(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules within the purview of Rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules since she was unable to show “necessitous circumstances she was unable to show circumstances” which made her eligible for grant of family pension. for grant of family pension. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the mat Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the mat on record. 12. To the mind of this Court, it was absolutely essential for the To the mind of this Court, it was absolutely essential for the To the mind of this Court, it was absolutely essential for the plaintiff to bring on record the fact that she was already gainfully employed plaintiff to bring on record the fact that she was already gainfu plaintiff to bring on record the fact that she was already gainfu , FSL Madhuban especially when the same was offered by with the employer, FSL Madhuban especially when the same was offered by with the employer way of compassion due to the death of her husband. way of compassion due to the death of her husband. The plaintiff could not have represented for grant of family pension without bringing the said factum represented for grant of family pension without bringing the said factum gratia employment on record. of ex-gratia employment on record. 13. To appreciate whether the plaintiff falls under the purview of To appreciate whether the plaintiff falls under the purview of To appreciate whether the plaintiff falls under the purview of Rule 8.35 of the .35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, it is necessary to reproduce the same hereunder: reproduce the same hereunder “8.35 (1) A family pension will take effect from the day following “8.35 (1) A family pension will take effect from the day following “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 death of the Government employee or from such other date as the death of the Government employee or from such other date as the competent authority may decide. the competent authority may decide. the competent authority may decide. ) A family pension will ordinarily be tenable. (2) A family pension will ordinarily be tenable. (2 (a) (i) in the case of widow or mother until death or remarriage (a) (i) in the case of widow or mother until death or remarriage (a) (i) in the case of widow or mother until death or remarriage whichever occur earlier; whichever occur earlier; (ii) in the case of a minor son, or minor brother, until he attains (ii) in the case of a minor son, or minor brother, until he attains (ii) in the case of a minor son, or minor brother, until he attains the age of [21]; the age of [21]; (iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter or minor sister, until (iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter or minor sister, until marriage or until she attains the age of [24] whichever occurs marriage or until she attains the age of [24] whichever occurs marriage or until she attains the age of [24] whichever occurs earlier; earlier; (iv) in the case of a father, for life. (iv) in the case of a father, for life. Note 1. A family pension granted to a posthumous child should Note 1. A family pension granted to a posthumous child should Note 1. A family pension granted to a posthumous child should commence from the date of his/her birth and not from the death commence from the date of his/her birth and not fr commence from the date of his/her birth and not fr of his/her father. of his/her father. Note 2. The family pension of a widow will cease on re- Note 2. The family pension of a widow will cease on re Note 2. The family pension of a widow will cease on re marriage but when such re marriage is annulled by divorce, marriage but when such re-marriage is annulled by divorce, desertion or death of the second husband her pension may be desertion or death of the second husband her pension may be desertion or death of the second husband her pension may be restored upon proof that she is in necessitous circumstances restored upon proof that she is in necessitous cir restored upon proof that she is in necessitous cir and otherwise deserving.” and otherwise deserving 14. It is true that a widow is eligible for It is true that a widow is eligible for family pension even after re- in the event of divorce, desertion by or death of the second husband. marriage, in the event of divorce, desertion by or death of the second husband. in the event of divorce, desertion by or death of the second husband. VANDANA 2025.02.07 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 2016 (O&M) RSA-2937-2016 (O&M) only be restored to the widow in the event However, the family pension can only be restored to the widow in the event However, the family pension “necessitous circumstances circumstances” and the fact that “ the fact that “she was otherwise deserving” could be evidenced from the material on record. could be evidenced from the material on record. 15. It is undisputed that the plaintiff-appellant is a It is undisputed that the plaintiff appellant is a Class-IV ex-gratia employee since December 7, 1992. The pay employee sinc The pay slip of the appellant for December, 2024 is handed over in Court today and retained with the record. 2024 is handed over in Court today and retained with the record. The gross pay of the plaintiff-appellant as on date The gross pay of the plaintiff as on date is Rs.68,128/- and her net pay is Rs.64,383/ 64,383/-. 16. After appreciating the analysis of fact After appreciating the analysis of facts and the applicable law by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the ourt and the First Appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff-appellant failed to discharge he appellant failed to discharge her onus regarding the fact that r onus regarding the fact that she was eligible for family pension due to “necessitous eligible for family pension due to “ necessitous circumstances” or “she was , to the mind of this Court suppression of otherwise deserving”. Moreover, to the mind of this Court suppression of otherwise deserving”. appellant ineligible for grant of family material fact, made the plaintiff-appellant ineligible for grant of family material fact, made the plaintiff pension. 17. Consequently, this Court holds that both the Courts below did not Consequently, this Court holds that both the Courts below did not Consequently, this Court holds that both the Courts below did not act with illegality, infirmity or impunity in passing act with illegality, infirmity or in passing the impugned judgments. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the record There is no error of law apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the present appeal dismissed. being RSA No.2937-2016 is dismissed. 18.
Decision
Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE January 27, 202 Vandana , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Whether reportable : Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.02.07 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5