Rajni Bala v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ORS.

 




     
    
 

 !"# $%&%!' ((

 )'% *

((( %%!' + ,&( - .') /0  !1 +
!+2!+ %!'

3#(4 % * 5.') /6 '#!- +& ((( &2!'# '&
7  837(0
 97
   








 


 
   

:::

97
 4( 5+ *6  
!

!

"

#
! $$%&$$'


#

(
)*

"


#

 
+#*



/0

12
 3 /
"12

!


1

"   41#2
$, % 4#

2

1


#

"


#
 #
*


3


5

#

!
 


"
"
*

#




#1

!2

*







" 
!

*

!

*





 
#1






"

6
#1 !2
7*
!
"
")*
"
 

7# 8*
"

*
$,
2




$% ,9 $,,:



  
*
!





#1
!


#!
1*


 



 1*
;
3 $55%% 5
!*


"
 *
#
(


 

 !

,'

<
*


"


1
 

!=
*
"

*

$5 / 



!

2
!
 





1
 !*!


7*
!


!2*
#


! 
3 /
#

!

%
 
#*
 -.#
 /0
*





1

!
 






41#2
$, %

1

!!
 !

+#2



!



2
 !!
1
)


(+#2

"

!2
-.#
 50 




!!
*
#

""



 7*
!


!





*

$, ,5 <0



"


/


#!



#1


 "!*

6
!



#1!


2

!" 

2
#2

1*


1


2
" #

"
*


1
*

#*
  #



!!*
!
!
*


!!2
!
 


!=
*


2

+#*

 #*
!&

/0

(
#



!
#!



 !
!
#

#*

12
61!
.
#



>
 

  
  ?

>     
   


 

 

 !"#$ %&'

<


#!
*
 
"! *


!2

% ,:

%



2


 





#!
%

'

#1
!

#!
@!

((
 !2


!!"


!2



!2
" !#
""
!*
"

"!
#
#!
%

'
-/0


 1!
!2



""
#





* "

!








1 
!2



. 
#
#1




 !

,'

<


#2


 $:

<
#

+#2

!)


!!*


 8+#2

-.#


0

"
#

 
!
 !=

*
"

* 
2


 1
 6.

Agitating the stand taken by respondent-department in its reply, replication was filed by the petitioner reiterating her stand that she has not performed second marriage with Manjit Singh and prays that pension be paid to her.

7.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully.

8.

The only question which arises for determination before this Court is whether petitioner will be entitled for the family pension on account of second marriage.

9.

As per the respondents, keeping in view the Rule 6.17 sub rule (4)

;

of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Vol. II, the family pension is allowed to the family of the deceased employee. The relevant sub Rule of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Vol. II is as under:- FAMILY PENSION SCHEME "6.17(4) The pension will be admissible- (i) (a) in the case of widow or widower up to the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier;

(b) in the case of a son until he attains the age of twenty-five years or till he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is earlier; and (c) to a daughter upto the age of twenty-five years irrespective of her marriage. However, an unmarried daughter shall be entitled to family pension irrespective of her age. But, family pension shall not be admissible to a daughter, if she starts earning her livelihood".

10.

A bare perusal of the above sub rule of Rule 6.17(ibid) shows that pension will be admissible in the case of widow upto the date of her death or remarriage, whichever is earlier. In the present case, when it came to the knowledge of the department that petitioner performed second marriage, vide the impugned letter/order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure p-3), petitioner was informed that a written complaint was received on 24.02.2013 against her that she re-married to S.Manjit Singh s/o Charan Singh r/o Vill.Chungiara and on the basis of the same, her pension was stopped from the month of February 2016. Further, enquiry report dated 28.12.2015 (Annexure R-1) shows that the petitioner -Rajni Bala has performed second marriage with aforesaid S.Manjit Singh on 24.02.2013. Since factum of re-marriage by the petitioner is established on record, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the present writ petition.

< 11.

In view of the above, no case is made out for
+#*
 !&

/0

12

3 /






 5 97
 6




























  ((

 ;
)*&
 A
3 ;
1!
 A 3