Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Order: 03.10.2008
State of Haryana and others
...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Parwati Devi and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present: Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, AAG, Haryana,
for the appellants.
Mr. Pardeep Salath, Advocate
for respondent no.1.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral).
C.M.No.66-C of 2008
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 47 days in
filing the appeal.
Heard counsel for the parties.
For the reasons stated in the application and as the delay is
neither malafide nor grossly negligent, the delay of 47 days in filing the
appeal is condoned.
R.S.A.No.21 of 2008
The State of Haryana, challenges the judgment and decree dated
20.08.2007, passed by the District Judge, Narnaul, accepting the appeal,
setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and as a
result decreeing the suit filed by the respondent.
One Chhaju Ram was appointed as a Patwari in the year 1945-
46 and passed away while in service on 26.06.1958. The State of Haryana
issued instructions dated 19.03.1981 titled as “Liberalisation of Pensionary
Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
benefits on the recommendations of Pay Commission”. The above
instructions, granted pension to widows/families of employees who had
retired before 01.07.1964 when the family pension scheme was not in
force. In view of these instructions, Smt. Parwati Devi-respondent No.1
made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, but her claim
for family pension was rejected, compelling her to file a suit.
The State of Haryana opposed the prayer in the suit by stating
that she was not entitled to pensionary benefits as there were no
instructions vide which the family members of deceased employee who
died in the year 1958 would be entitled to receive family pension.
On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following
issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the family pension on
the grounds mentioned in the suit? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in
the suit?OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
suit?OPD
4. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD
5. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present suit?OPD
6. Relief.
The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, dismissed the suit
primarily on the ground that it was filed 45 years after the death of Chhaju
Ram and as on the date of Chhaju Ram’s demise, there was no provision
in the rules providing, for grant of family pension.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent filed
an appeal. The District Judge, Narnaul, accepted the appeal, reversed the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit by
Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) -3-
placing reliance upon the instructions issued by the State of Haryana on
19.03.1981 granting the benefit of family pension to widows/families of
employees, who had retired before 01.07.1964, when the family pension
scheme was not in force.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the suit was filed 45
years after the demise of Chhaju Ram and, therefore the trial Court, rightly
dismissed it as barred by time. The first appellate Court committed an
error of jurisdiction in decreeing the suit, as in the year 1958, there was no
scheme for grant of family pension.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the
right to claim family pension was conferred for the first time, vide
instructions dated 19.03.1981. The respondent’s prayer for grant of family
pension under these instructions, was rejected and, therefore, the suit was
not barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the right to receive a
pension is a recurring cause of action and, therefore, a plea of limitation in
cases relating to pension is not available to the State.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgments.
Chhaju Ram, the respondent’s husband passed away on
26.06.1958, while working as a Patwari. On this date, the relevant
instructions did not provide for grant of family pension to the family
members or the widow of a deceased employee. However, on 19.03.1981,
Secretary to Government, Haryana, Finance Department issued
instructions titled as “Liberalisation of Pensionary benefits on the
recommendations of Pay Commission”. A relevant extract thereof reads as
follows:-
“A minimum pension of Rs.125/- p.m. may also be allowed to the
widows/families of the employees who may not have opted for
the Family Pension Scheme 1964 or who had retired before 1st
Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) -4-July, 1964, when the family pension scheme was not in force.”
The right of widows/families of the employees who had retired
before 01.07.1964 to receive family pension was conferred for the first
time,pursuant to these instructions. The appellants have failed to place on
record any instructions/rules or regulations modifying these instructions or
withdrawing them. As these instructions are in force and the respondent is
entitled to benefit thereunder, the first appellate Court did not commit any
error in accepting the appeal, reversing the judgment passed by the trial
Court and decreeing the suit. The right to apply for family pension was
conferred, for the first time, on 19.03.1981. The right to claim a pension is
a recurring cause of action, the suit, therefore, was not barred by time
In view of what has been stated herein above, no question of law
muchless a substantial question of law arrises for consideration. The
appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
October 03, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE