Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. PARKASHO DEVI versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Parkasho Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-5531-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2055 (28 March 2006)

CWP No. 5531 of 2005 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh..

CWP No. 5531 of 2005

Date of decision: 27.3.2006

Smt. Parkasho Devi

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

....Respondent

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

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Patwalia

Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana

for the respondents.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The petitioner was married to one Raghubir Singh working as a stenographer in the Sales Tax Department of the State government. The aforesaid Raghubir Singh died on 28.8.2000. Consequent upon the death of her husband, the petitioner became entitled to family pension. Accordingly, the petitioner started to draw family pension. Suffice it to state, that at the time when the petitioner used to draw family pension, she was required to declare, that she has not re-married, and further that as and when she re- marries, she would report the matter to the bank, disbursing family pension to her. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, and on the execution of a certificate to the aforesaid effect, that the petitioner continued to draw CWP No. 5531 of 2005 Page numbers

family pension till 28.2.2005.

It subsequently came to the notice of the authorities, that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage on 28.6.2002. On the discovery of the aforesaid fact, an impugned order dated 24.3.2005 was passed, requiring the petitioner to refund the family pension received by her from 28.6.2002 to 28.2.2005. It is the instant order, which is subject matter of challenge through the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner.

Originally, the petitioner had relied on an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kiran Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (3) Recent Services Judgements 283, however, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly acknowledges, that the aforesaid judgement cannot be pressed for seeking relief on behalf of the petitioner on account of the express provisions contained in paragraph 4(iii)(a) of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Scheme), relevant portion whereof is being extracted hereunder:- "The pension is admissible:

a) in the case of widow/widower upto the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier and"

In view of the mandate of paragraph 4(iii)(a) of the 1964 Scheme, it is apparent, that the family pension could have been claimed by the petitioner only till the date of her re-marriage, and not thereafter. Since admittedly, the petitioner contracted second marriage on 28.6.2002, she was disentitled to family pension thereafter.

Although, learned counsel for the petitioner does not seriously impugn the action of the respondents in passing the order, holding the petitioner disentitled to family pension, he vehemently contends, that there CWP No. 5531 of 2005 Page numbers

was no justification, whatsoever, with the respondents to recover a sum of Rs.64,773/-, paid to the petitioner on account of family pension from 28.6.2002 to 28.2.2005. This assertion of the petitioner primarily stems from the fact, that the petitioner herself had applied for maternity leave during the course of re-employment on compassionate grounds. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had volunteered information to the respondents, that she had contracted a second marriage.

It is not possible for us to accept the instant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the certificate affixed by the petitioner at the time when family pension was released to her, wherein, she continued to assert on a regular basis, that she was unmarried, and had not contracted a second marriage. Since the family pension was paid to the petitioner on account of her aforesaid false declaration, we are satisfied, that the recovery made from her is fully justified.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge.

( P.S. Patwalia )

Judge.

27.03.2006

sk.


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.