IMPORTANT POINT
Pension would be regulated by Family Pension Scheme, 1964 and not the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waived service of notice and at the request of the learned counsel, the appeal was heard on the same day.

3. Being aggrieved by an Order dated 21st April, 2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 6012 of 2014, the widow of a government employee has approached this Court with a grievance that she is not being paid full pension in accordance with the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’) of the Government of Punjab.

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under :

Shri Yashpal, the husband of the appellant, was serving as a Computer DOD in the office of the District Malaria Officer under the Haryana Government. Upon his death, family pension payable to the widow had been determined at Rs.2,153/- per month. Respondent No.1, who is a real contesting respondent, is the mother of late Shri Yash Pal, who filed Suit No.30/SC of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak for getting a succession certificate so that she can get the pension, which was payable in respect of the services rendered by late Shri Yash Pal to the Government of Haryana. In the said suit, the appellant appeared and made a claim that she, being the widow of late Shri Yash Pal, was entitled to pension, whereas sister of late Shri Yash Pal, who was also a respondent in the said suit filed a written statement stating that she had no objection if succession certificate was issued in favour of respondent no.1.

5. After hearing the parties concerned, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak dismissed the suit by coming to a conclusion that the mother, who was the plaintiff in the said case and the sister of late Shri Yash Pal were not entitled to succession certificate and held that the present appellant, who was respondent No.3 in the said suit, being the widow of the deceased, was entitled to succession certificate so far as pension payable in respect of the services rendered by late Shri Yash Pal was concerned. The said judgment was delivered on 25th April, 2013.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment, Civil Appeal No.88 of 2013 was filed by Respondent No.1 i.e. the mother of late Shri Yash Pal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak. The said appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2014.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the first appellate Court, the respondent mother filed Civil Revision, being C.R. No. 6012 of 2014, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

8. After hearing the parties concerned, the High Court allowed the said Revision Petition by observing that the respondent mother was entitled to the succession certificate in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as she was also one of the heirs of late Shri Yash Pal.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the High Court, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant – widow of late Shri Yash Pal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the only person who is entitled to the pension as per the provisions of the Scheme. The learned counsel submitted that pension is paid in pursuance of the aforestated Scheme and therefore, pension cannot be treated as other assets of the deceased and according to the provisions of the Scheme, only the appellant is entitled to the pension. In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the High Court has committed an error by observing that all legal heirs have a share in the pension payable in respect of the services rendered by late Shri Yash Pal.

11. The learned counsel relied upon the provisions of the Scheme which provide that only the widow is entitled to the pension and none else. He referred to the provisions of the Scheme and submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hig