R.S.A. No. 2127 of 2007 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2127 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.1.2009
Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Yamuna Nagar and others
....Appellants
Versus
Smt. Raj Rani and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This regular second appeal by the State of Haryana is
directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2007 passed by the
learned lower appellate Court decreeing the suit filed by the
plaintiff/respondent No. 1.
The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 brought a suit for declaration
and injunction claiming that she was entitled to service dues of Anil
Kumar her deceased son, who died during service.
The dispute was between Smt. Raj Rani i.e. widowed mother
of Anil Kumar and respondent No. 2 i.e widow of Anil Kumar.
The learned trial Court decreed the suit for half of the amount
by holding that mother was also required to be included as member of
family being class one heir and thus entitled to retiral benefits along with
respondent No. 2.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab
R.S.A. No. 2127 of 2007 (O&M)
-2-
and another Vs. Kharak Singh Kang and another, 1998(1) RSJ 412,
Single Bench of this Court in Lichhami Devi Vs. State of Haryana,
2001(3) RSJ 675 and Phool Pati Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board
(Operation) now re-designated as Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Parsarn
Nigam Limited, Hisar, 2002(2) PLR 727 has been pleased to lay down
the definition of the ‘family’ as given in rules to be ultra vires the
Constitution as widowed mother who is falling in “Class-1 heir” as per
schedule of succession could not be excluded from the family.
Two appeals were filed against the judgment and decree, one
by State of Haryana and other by respondent No. 1.
The State challenged the decree on the plea that the
judgment and decree passed is contrary to rules, whereas respondent
No. 1 challenged the judgment and decree by claiming full amount on
the plea that respondent No. 2 has remarried and, therefore, was not
entitled to any benefit.
The learned lower appellate Court has been pleased to
accept the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, whereas the appeal filed
by the State was ordered to be dismissed.
Learned Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, has raised the following
substantial question of law for decision by this Court: –
“Whether the learned Courts below were justified in
decreeing the suit by ignoring the rules governing the
service conditions of Anil Kumar?”
The substantial question of law raised does not arise as the
same stands settled by this Court in State of Punjab and another Vs.
Kharak Singh Kang and another, 1998(1) RSJ 412, Lichhami Devi
Vs. State of Haryana, 2001(3) RSJ 675 and Phool Pati Vs. Haryana
State Electricity Board (Operation) now re-designated as Dakshin
Haryana Vidyut Parsarn Nigam Limited, Hisar, 2002(2) PLR 727
R.S.A. No. 2127 of 2007 (O&M)
-3-
holding that mother is also entitled to benefits and once respondent No.
2 has remarried, she could not be treated to be member of the family to
claim any amount.
Consequenlty, no fault can be found with judgment and
decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
January 22, 2009
R.S.