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