Satish Kumar Bhardwaj v. Vice Chancellor, Panjab University Chd And ANR

 
     
 

 !"#$!%&'&"()*+ + 
 

 

         

    !!!!!

 )  , - +.
  . -  "

#  
 $%

&   # '

(%

&     !!!!!

 .-/+

01 '    is praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to restore the family pension to the petitioner. ) * &&&   

 + , 
  -  &, 

     . &  &

/  01&   &&  2  )334)335

*  

& &&     '    

   )343*

 & 

   373))3)7&     %2 6) *-     &  

         *  & -1-

              -        %8  &  & 

  7 9            &  &    

             

 &    & )434)335    3:34)343                &      &   &

&  ; <     &    6       

&&&

      


 . &   

&

/ 01$     =4>.;1.1.1&     &     &

%  

  4334)343  &       &

&&   ? ' 

   &         6-  

 = *           &  &&   7.

A perusal of the facts of the case would show that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has re-married in the year 2010. In regard to grant of family pension to the petitioner is concerned, as per  =4>.;1.1.1&   &     -2-

 &

&&    

 *

 2 &   =4>.;1.1.1    "6 @.;1*  6 .1 .1&       & 

   AB 8.

A perusal of the above extracted rule would show that the husband of the deceased employee would be entitled for family pension upto the date of re-marriage. As the petitioner has re-married in the year 2010, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of family pension as per the abovesaid Rule.

:+ *-  &&      &

  10.

Accordingly, finding no merit in t        11.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.

*+ + 

 .-
   C  - D  "

E F C   "

E F -3-