Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SARUPTI DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Sarupti Devi v. Union of India & Ors - CWP-5000-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2059 (28 March 2006)

CWP NO.5000 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.5000 OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 30.3.2006

Smt. Sarupti Devi ....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. PATWALIA

PRESENT: Mr.C.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on repeatedly being asked, asserts that family pension is permissible only under the Army Instructions No.51 of 1980, which have been extracted in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition. Relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereunder:- " In supersession of all existing orders on the subject the family pension benefits as detailed in paragraph 2 and subsequent paras will be admissible to the families of the Armed Forces personnel (excluding families of reservists) who were in service on 1.1.1964 or who joined/join service thereafter and who died/die while in service or after retirement with retiring, disability or invalid pension/special pension on account of cause which are neither attributable to nor aggravated by service."

On a perusal of the prerequisites depicted in the portion extracted hereinabove, we are satisfied that family pension can be claimed only by a dependent on the basis of service rendered in Army as on 1.1.1964 or CWP NO.5000 OF 2006 2

thereafter. It is apparent from the pleadings of the instant writ petition that the husband of the petitioner, who allegedly joined the Indian Army in 1937 continued to discharge his duties as such till 23.4.1946. In view of the above, it is apparent that the husband of the petitioner, on account of whose service the petitioner is claiming family pension, was neither in service on 1.1.1964, nor was he engaged thereafter.

For the reasons recorded above, we are satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to family pension.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( P.S. Patwalia )

March 30, 2006. Judge

vig


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.