High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Kalawati v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-2196-2006  RD-P&H 1430 (6 March 2006)
Civil Writ Petition No. 2196 of 2006
Date of decision : 16.2.2006.
State of Haryana and others
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.
( J.S. Khehar )
( S.N.Aggarwal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.