Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS versus KARAMJIT KAUR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Punjab & Ors v. Karamjit Kaur - RSA-4293-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 986 (20 February 2006)

R.S.A. No. 4293 of 2005(O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 4293 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 28, 2006

State of Punjab and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

Karamjit Kaur

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. D.S. Jandiala, Additional

Advocate General, Punjab,

for the appellants.

Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate

for the respondent.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The defendants State of Punjab and another have approached this Court through the present appeal having remained unsuccessful before the learned first Appellate Court.

The plaintiff had filed suit for declaration claiming that she was entitled to the grant of family pension and other benefits on account of death of her son who was working as Wireless Operator.

The facts which emerge from the record show that Balwinder Singh had died on July 3, 1993, while in service. On that account, the plaintiff claimed her entitlement for family pension. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by R.S.A. No. 4293 of 2005(O&M) [2]

the learned trial Court. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court relied upon two judgments of this Court in the case of Malkit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (2) RSJ 515 and Phool Pati Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and another, 2002 (3) RSJ 769 to hold that since the revised rules had come into force w.e.f. January 1, 1996, therefore, every parent (father or mother) who happens to be alive after January 1, 1996 would be entitled to family pension irrespective of the fact whether the ward had died prior or after January 1,

1996. Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and her suit was decreed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

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

Dismissed.

February 28, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.