STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS. versus SARTI DEVI

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 27-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH 
CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS. 
v. 
SARTI DEVI 
NOVEMBER 27, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Se1vice Law: 
Revised Pension Rules, 1950 : Rule 3. 
Pension-Family Pension-Famil:r-Scope of-Mother-Held not in-
cluded in the family-Not entitled to family pension-Direction for ex-gratia 
payment to mother. 
· 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 20. 
Jurisdiction-Claim for f amity pension-Suit instituted in a Court where 
no cause of action had arisen--Decree held nullity. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The respondent's son, a Constable in the Gujarat State Reserve 
Police died in harness. The widow of the deceased Constable was granted E 
family pension but as she contracted second marriage the payment of 
pension was stopped. Thereafter the mother of the deceased Constable, the 
respondent, instituted a suit in the Court of Additional Senior Sub-Judge, 
Mohindergarh, Haryana claiming family pension which was decreed. The 
. first appellate Court and the High Court affirmed the decree. State of 
Gujarat preferred appeal before this Court. 
Disposing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 envisages 
institution of the suit in the court within whose jurisdiction the defendants G 
ordinarily reside etc. The deceased Constable served in the State of 
Gujarat. The appellant's offices are situated in Gujarat State and no part 
of the cause of action had arisen in Haryana. Neither counsel can waive 
the jurisdiction nor by consent confer jurisdiction on courts situated in 
the State of Haryana. Therefore, none of the courts in Haryana has any 
territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the payment of pension by H 
691 
. 692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R . 
A 
the, State of Gujarat. Under these circumstances, the decree of the trial 
court is one of total lack of jurisdiction. It is a nullity. [693-B-C] 
B 
2. In view of the express definition of the family in Revised Family 
Pension Scheme, mother has not been included as a member of the family 
to claim any family pension from the Government, much less after the 
maximum period of ten years. Under these circumstances, in either event, 
the decree of trial court as affirmed by appellate Court and second appeal, 
are clearly illegal. The respondent-mother is an aged woman of 85 years. 
She has no other source except her dependence on her deceased son. In 
view of these peculiar facts, without treating the order of this Court as a 
C precedent an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 6,000 shall be made by the State to 
the respondent within a period of two months from the date of the order. 
[694-D-F] 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11662 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.94 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in RS.A. No. 1660 of 1994. 
V. Desai and Ms. H. Wahi for the Appellants. 
E 
S.S. Khaduja, Y.P. Dhingra and V.S. Satija for the Respondent. 
. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
· F 
Lal Singh, son of the respondent who died in harness, had worked 
as Constable in Gujarat State Reserve Police in the year 1975. He was 
recruited in the year 1965 as a Constable. After his demise, his widow 
Savitri was granted family pension. She contracted second marriage in 
1976. Consequently, the appellant stopped paying pension to the widow. In 
G 1987, the respondent laid the suit in the Court of Additional Senior 
··Sub-Judge, Mohindergarh, Haryana State claiming family pension. The 
Trhl Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the District Court refused to 
condone the delay of 107 days and confirmed the decree of the Trial Court 
and when second appeal was preferred, the High Court in RSA No. 
1660/94 by an order dated 17th December, 1994 dismissed it, as usual, in 
H limine. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
STATEv. SARTI DEVI 
693 
Two questions have been raised in this appeal. First relates to the A 
jurisdiction and the second to the entitlement of the respondent to pension. 
It is an admitted fact that the deceased Lal Singh served as a Constable in 
the State of Gujarat. Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 envisages 
institution of the suit in the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendants 
ordinarily reside etc. The appellant's offices are situated in Gujarat State 
and no part of the cause of action had arisen in Haryana. Neither counsel 
can waive the jurisdiction nor consent confer jurisdiction on Courts 
situated in the State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.