Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KALAWATI versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kalawati v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-2196-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1430 (6 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No. 2196 of 2006

Date of decision : 16.2.2006.

...

Parties Name

Kalawati

................ Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana and others

.................Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal

Present: Sh. S.K. Sud, Advocate

for the petitioner.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has made two prayers. Firstly, for setting aside the order dated 16.8.2004 (Annexure P-4), vide which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the ex-gratia scheme has been declined. And, secondly, for the grant of family pension. So far as the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds under ex-gratia scheme is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press this claim, in view of various decisions rendered by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds under the ex- gratia scheme is dismissed as not pressed.

In so far as the claim of family pension is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court, firstly, a judgment rendered by a single Bench in Kanta Devi vs. State of Haryana 2000 (2) SCT 32, and secondly, a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rama Devi vs. State of Haryana and others 2005 (3) RSJ 695. We find no merit in the claim of the petitioner for family pension, on account of the fact that in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme contained in Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, was taken into consideration and no reference, whatsoever, was made to Rule 3 thereof. Rule 3 of the Family Pension Scheme 1964 has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Shanti Devi vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 1851 of 2006, decided on 7.2.2006), and on interpretation thereof, it has been concluded that dependents of an employee engaged on ad-hoc basis are not entitled to family pension. In view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Shanti Devi's case (supra), we decline to accept the claim of the petitioner for family pension.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( S.N.Aggarwal )

Judge

16.2.2006.

chug


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.