AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is a widow of Attar Singh, Driver who died in a road accident on 18.09.1991 leaving behind his wife, minor daughter and son. Thereafter, petitioner was granted family pension and continued to receive the same till November, 1999 when a complaint was made to the Treasury Officer, Bhiwani with an assertion that the petitioner had remarried with Om Parkash younger brother of the deceased husband of the petitioner. On the basis of an enquiry held conclusion was drawn that since she has remarried, the family pension be stopped to her. Petitioner was not associated in the said enquiry which was held by the respondents.
(2.) NOW the petitioner has approached this Court for release of the family pension alongwith arrears and interest thereon. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply is that the petitioner having remarried after the death of her husband Attar Singh, she is not entitled to the benefit of family pension as per Rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume -II. It has been asserted that since she is remarried to Om Parkash, the younger brother of late husband of the petitioner, the family pension has rightly been stopped and that to, on the basis of a report dated 07.12.1999 (Annexure R -2) . It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry which resulted in the report dated 07.12.1999 (Annexure R -2) on the basis of which family pension of the petitioner was stopped petitioner was not associated and, therefore, that is not binding upon the petitioner. In any case, he contends that the claim of the petitioner is covered in her favour by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.7741 of 2007, titled as 'Smt. Balwant Kaur & another Vs. State of Punjab & another', decided on 23.04.2008. The claim of the petitioner is further stated to be covered in her favour by the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP 4623 of 2012, titled as Amrit Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & others', decided on 28.10.2013. Apart from that counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7313 of 2013, titled as 'Kiran Kumari Vs. State of Haryana & others', decided on 19.08.2013, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of family pension despite she having contracted a second marriage.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that as per the provisions contained in Rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume -II, the benefit is only admissible for the grant of family pension in the case of a widow. After remarriage, the petitioner is not a widow any more and, therefore, family pension cannot be granted to her.;