Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2008 (1) TMI 943

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al of these appeals, we would note the factual matrix only from the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4392 of 2004 titled Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors. v. Surji Devi. 4. Appellant No. 1 was the successor of Haryana State Electricity Board which was constituted under Section 5 and incorporated under Section 12 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Respondent (Surji Devi) is the widow of Late Shri Krishan. He was appointed on a work-charge basis on or about 12.08.1974. Indisputably he continued to serve the appellant no. 1 in the same capacity. While in service, he expired on 11.08.1985. Respondent was appointed on compassionate ground in the services of the appellant Corporation in terms of an exgratia scheme. Con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable. (ii) Respondents husband having been a member of the Contributory Provident Fund, the Family Pension Scheme was not applicable in her case. 7. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, urged: (i) Appellants having not questioned the correctness of Kanta Devi (supra), now cannot turn round and contend that the Family Pension Scheme is not applicable. (ii) The High Court in Kanta Devi (supra) having interpreted para 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, the appellants are bound thereby. 8. The State of Punjab made the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The said Rules, subject to modifications, became applicable to the State of Haryana. V....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ily Pension is contained in Appendix 1 of the said Rules. Relevant portion of Para 4 of the said Scheme reads as under: 4. This scheme is administered as below:- (i) The family pension is admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement on or after the 1st July, 1964, if at the time of death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. The family pension will not be admissible in case of death after retirement if the retired employee at the time of death was in receipt of gratuity only. In case of death while in service a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break. Note 1. The term one year continuo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r amount. 14. The scheme relating to grant of Family Pension was made under a statute. A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the statutory interdicts. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2 vis-`-vis the Family Pension Scheme, it would be evident that the respondent was not entitled to the grant of any family pension. Husband of the respondent was a work-charge employee. His services had never been regularized. It may be unfortunate that he had worked for 11 years. He expired before he could get the benefit of the regularization scheme but sentiments and sympathy alone cannot be a ground for taking a view different from what is permissible in law. [See Maruti Ud....