Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAGDISH LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors - RSA-4114-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1176 (27 February 2006)

R.S.A. No.4114 of 2003 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. NO.4114 OF 2003

DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 23,2006

JAGDISH LAL V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: SHRI ROOP CHAND CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE,FOR THE APPELLANT.

VINEY MITTAL,J.

The appellant is the legal representative of deceased Khilandi Bai.

The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below.

She filed a suit for declaration to the effect that as mother of deceased,Smt.

Laxmi Rattan, she is entitled to inherit and receive all the service benefits of the deceased and was also entitled to family pension etc.

The plaintiff claimed that Laxmi Rattan was the daughter of the plaintiff and had joined Lecturer in the Language Department,Haryana on November 25,1968. She died as an unnatural death on September 23,1992.

An F.I.R. was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Raju, her step son. At the time of her death, aforesaid Laxmi Rattan was working as a Lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School,Seswan,District Kaithal. The plaintiff claimed that Laxmi Rattan was having strained relations with her husband, S.P.Rattan, defendant No.4 and,therefore, being her mother, it was the plaintiff alone who was entitled to all the service benefits of aforesaid Laxmi Rattan and was also entitled to R.S.A. No.4114 of 2003 2

family pension.

The defendants contested the suit. In their written statement, defendants No.1 to 3 claimed that as per pension rules only the widower or minor children were entitled to service/terminal benefits of the deceased employee and the plaintiff being the mother was not so entitled. A similar written statement was filed by defendant No.4, S.P.Rattan who claimed that being her husband,he was entitled to service/terminal benefits of the deceased employee Laxmi Rattan.

Both the courts below have concurrently held that defendant No.4, S.P.Rattan was the husband of the deceased employee, Laxmi Rattan and,therefore, he was entitled to all the service/terminal benefits of the deceased employee, Laxmi Rattan. It was also noticed that defendant No.4 had died during the pendency of the suit and had been succeeded by his legal representatives Rajiv Rattan and Jyoti Rattan, therefore, they were entitled to succeed to his estate. It was also noticed that plaintiff being the mother could not claim any preferential right than S.P.Rattan, the husband of the deceased. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and her appeal failed before the learned first appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 23,2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.