Letters Patent Appeal No. 1293 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1293 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.12.2010 State of Punjab and others ..Appellants Versus Smt. Salochna Devi ..Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Ms. Ranjna Shahi, Advocate for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The State of Punjab and others have preferred the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment dated 5.4.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the period of service from 27.12.1981 to 30.6.1985 rendered by the deceased husband of the writ-petitioner should be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The aforesaid direction has been issued in pursuance of provisions of Rule 4.23 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume- II (for brevity, the 'rules'). As a result of tagging the aforesaid period as a qualifying service, his total service would become eligible for grant of pension. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1293 of 2010 (O&M) 2 It is appropriate to mention that the deceased husband of the petitioner started working as a Dumper Operator from 25.10.1986 and superannuated on 31.10.1996 excluding the period of absence from duty. Accordingly, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge and the deceased husband of the petitioner is held entitled to grant of pay and other retiral benefits. As a consequence, the petitioner, being a widow, has been held entitled to the family pension with effect from 3.2.2003. The learned Single Judge has also issued direction for holding a fact finding inquiry with regard to the services if any rendered by the deceased husband right from 1956 onwards as noticed in the judgment and inquiry is required to be entrusted to a fairly senior officer not below the rank of P.C.S. (Executive Branch) and if it is found that the deceased husband worked even prior to 27.12.1981, then further such other service shall also be taken into account towards qualifying service immediately and the pension/family pension admissible to the writ petitioner-respondent or her deceased husband shall be suitably revised and arrears thereof shall also be paid to her, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the fact finding enquiry report. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and are of the view that none of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge could be faulted. The first part of the directions concerning tagging the period from 27.12.1981 to 30.6.1985 is necessarily based on Rule 4.23 of the rules and do not call for any interference. Likewise, other directions for holding an inquiry with regard to the service rendered by the deceased-husband of the petitioner from 1956 are also unexceptional. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1293 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Having heard the learned counsel, we are unable to find any ground to admit the appeal as no question of law much less a substantive question would arise for determination. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 21.12.2010 JUDGE VK