High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lt. Col. Ajay Malik & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 7 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lt. Col. Ajay Malik & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 7 October, 2009
Civil Writ Petition No.164 of 2009                           -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                               Civil Writ Petition No.164 of 2009
                               Decided on : 07-10-2009


Lt. Col. Ajay Malik & others
                                                    .... Petitioners

                        VERSUS


State of Haryana & others

                                                    .... Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.

Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for the respondents.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral).

The petitioners, who are parents and brothers of Mrs.

Anita Malik (the deceased employee), who was working as

Lecturer in M.L.R. Sarawati college of Education, Charkhi Dadri,

Distt. Bhiwani, have filed the instant petition for issuing direction to

the respondents to release the family pension to them on account

of death of the deceased employee.

During the course of arguments on 27.5.2009, an

objection has been taken by the respondents that the deceased

employee was married, therefore, neither her brother nor her

parents are entitled for family pension.
Civil Writ Petition No.164 of 2009 -2-

On 27.5.2009, the counsel for the petitioners sought

adjournment to file an affidavit to the effect whether the deceased

employee was married or unmarried.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly

stated that the deceased employee was married, though, she was

not living with her husband. But she was also not divorcee.

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that in

view of these facts, the petitioners are not entitled for family

pension under the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners could

not controvert the objection raised by the counsel for the

respondents.

In view of above, this petition is dismissed.

7th October, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
Monika JUDGE