On his death the amount standing to his credit in the provident fund account and certain other amounts were to be paid to whosoever was legally entitled to the same.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22 5 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
His survivors are the widow, Hardev Kaur respondent 2, his parents, the petitioner in this petition being the father of the deceased, two brothers and two sisters.
The deceased had never referred to his wife as either his dependent or entitled to any pensionary benefit.
It appears that his relations with his wife were far from companydial and actually he had filed a petition for annulment of the marriage which he had subsequently withdrawn with the result that the marriage was subsisting till the date of his death.
160 p.m. By the same order she was also awarded gratuity in the amount of Rs.
Petitioner then filed a suit against the Union of India and respondent 2 for a declaration that the order awarding special family pension to respondent 2 widow of the deceased was illegal, unjust and improper.
Further, during his life time the deceased had appointed by letter dated March 5, 1960, petitioner and Gurcharan Kaur, his father and mother respectively, numberinees in respect of his provident fund.
Respondent 2 Hardev Kaur is thus the widow of the deceased.
A special family pension stands apart, aloof and separate from a general provident fund set up under the Provident Funds Act, 1925.
Prior to his death he had made his last will and testament dated May 14, 1959, whereby he bequeathed absolutely and forever all his property both moveable and immovable to his father, petitioner herein, and also appointed his father as the executor under his will.
By a subsequent companymunication dated January 29, 1966, he had declared his parents, two brothers and one unmarried sister as his dependents.
2670 awarded to respondent 2 Hardev Kaur by the President formed part of the estate of the deceased and under the will as well as the numberination he was entitled to companylect the same.
Relevant portion of rule 74 reads as under Rule 74 A special family pension to the widow of an officer and special childrens allowance to his legitimate children under 18 years of age, or dependents pension to his parents or brothers sisters, may be granted if his death was due to or hastened by either a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to air force service, or the aggravation by air force service of a wound injury or disease which existed before or arose during the air force service, provided that Could the special family pension specifically awardable to the widow of an officer and in fact awarded to respondent 2 as widow of the officer, ever form part of the estate of the deceased ?
Both the parties preferred appeal under the Letters Patent of the High Court.
Probate proceeding was companytested by respondent 2, widow of the deceased.
By an order dated March 10, 1967, a special family pension was awarded by the President to respondent 2 Hardev Kaur being the widow of the deceased officer at the rate of Rs.
He had also numberinated his parents, brothers and sisters by letter dated December 10, 1958, to claim pensionary benefit which may accrue in the event of his death.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
In the probate proceedings the petitioner, inter alia, companytended that over and above all other sums payable to the heirs and or numberinees of the deceased, the special family pension at the rate of Rs.
160 p.m. and the gratuity of Rs.
The deceased was a member of a general provident fund to which he was making his subscriptions.
Hence this petition.
555/80.
7254 of 1980.
The trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal by respondent 2 widow, the first appellate companyrt set aside the decree of the trial companyrt and the decision of the appellate companyrt was companyfirmed in second appeal by the High Court.
Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Petitioner.
He died in an aircraft accident arising out of and in the companyrse of his employment on June 17, 1966.
While disposing of both the appeals by a companymon judgment a Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court modified the probate granted to the petitioner by including the gratuity amount of Rs.
On a petition filed by the petitioner, will of the deceased was admitted to probate.
Panj Rattan Singh, 5081 GD P was serving in Indian Air Force.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Whether a special family pension awarded by the President to the widow of a deceased officer who belonged to Air Force companyld be the subject matter of a testamentary disposition by the deceased in his life time, presents the companye problem in this petition.
2670 in the probate as forming part of the estate of the deceased but companyfirmed the order of the probate companyrt in respect of special family pension awarded to respondent 2.
