IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1057 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 30.8.2010 The State of Haryana and others …..Appellants versus Miss Chander Rekha Jindal ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.1.2010, granting benefit of family pension to the respondent. It is apparent from the records that father of the petitioner died in harness on 13.2.1974. Mother of the petitioner expired on 1.2.1973. The petitioner was the only legal heir. It is an admitted fact that before his death, father of the petitioner had rendered two years, seven months and 25 days of service with the appellant-State. Claim of the appellant was declined by stating that as her father had not completed more than five years of regular service, as such, family members were not entitled to get benefit of family pension. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by observing as under:- “The issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. Rule 6.17 CSR clearly envisages that the family of the Govt. Letters Patent Appeal No.1057 of 2010(O&M) employee who dies in harness is entitled to the benefit of family pension. The Rule further says that the Govt. employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service, without break. The learned State counsel has not been able to show any Rule contrary to it debarring the petitioner from the claim of family pension. This issue was under consideration in the case of Chhano Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr. 1992(2) Recent Services Judgments 476, wherein the similar plea that he had not rendered continuous service of 5 years was taken by the State, but the same was rejected while relying upon the provisions of Rule 6.12(2)(i) and (ii) of CSR. No contrary judgment has been referred by the learned State counsel. In view of this, the instant writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of family pension to the petitioner from the date when the said relief is actually available to her till Rules of CSR permit her entitlement to the benefit of family pension. It is stated that the petitioner has now become major. Therefore, the arrears of the family pension due be paid to her along with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of 3 months. Before us, an attempt has been made to say that when father of the appellant had died, no rule, providing benefit of family pension, was in existence so far as Punjab Civil Services Rules are concerned. No such plea was taken in the written statement and the said plea was also not agitated before the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that once the plea 2 Letters Patent Appeal No.1057 of 2010(O&M) has not been taken before the learned Single Judge, in appeal, the appellant is not entitled to raise a new plea. Otherwise also, it is a question of providing benefit to a legal heir of a deceased employee. Technical objection will not come in way of the Court to grant compassion. No case is made out to interfere. No plausible explanation has been given to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal as well as application for condonation of delay both stand dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 30.08.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3