Smt. Sohna Devi vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 2009

                                      1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                          RSA No. 2385 of 2008.
                          Date of Decision: 27.1.2009
                                     ***

Smt. Sohna Devi
                                                        .. Appellant
             VS.

Union of India & Ors.
                                                        .. Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,


Present:-    Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate
             for the appellant.
             ***

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a
suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, the plaintiff-appellant has
preferred the instant regular second appeal and has laid challenge to the
judgments and decrees dated 5.10.2005 and 7.12.2007 passed by learned
trial court as well as learned appellate Court below respectively.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused
the case file very carefully.

The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit seeking grant of pension
and other benefits accrued after the death of her husband Ram Parshad and
also the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents to release
the benefits. Both the Courts below while relying upon the Pension Rules,
applicable to the case of husband of the appellant, concurrently held that the
service rendered by the deceased Ram Parshad, in no way, qualifies either
him or the appellant, after the death of the employee, for pension.
Admittedly, no pension was sanctioned to deceased Ram Parshad after he
was boarded out from service on 7.8.1972 and no request was made by him
prior to his death on 15.2.1985. Even the plaintiff herself remained mum for
further 14 years for grant of family pension, which led the Courts below to
rightly conclude that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant is time barred. Even
2

the suit was concurrently found to be bad for non-joining of necessary and
proper parties.

Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. It cannot be
said that the findings returned by the Courts below are either illegal or
perverse and need no interference. No question of law much less substantial
question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly
dismissed.

(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
January 27,2009
Jiten