Regular Second Appeal No.2170 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2170 of 2009 Date of decision: September 04, 2009 Smt Maya Rani .....APPELLANT VERSUS Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others. .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Rajnish Narula, Advocate for Mr Pritam Saini, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants/respondents to pay interest w.e.f. 3.6.1976 up-to date on the delayed payment of family pension to her, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panchkula on 24.10.2008. The said judgement and decree was upheld by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc)/Fast Track Court, Panchkula on 16.2.2009 in a first appeal filed by the plaintiff, who is now before this Court by way of second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiff, her husband-Ram Sarup had been working as an Assistant Linesman with the defendants, who expired on 2.6.1976 due to electric shock while working on an electricity pole. Her claim for family pension was rejected by the defendants. She filed a writ petition, upon which the High Court ordered the defendants to release family pension within a period of three months. As the family pension was sanctioned in the year 2006 w.e.f 3.6.1976, she was entitled to grant of interest on the delayed payment. The case of the defendants was that the claim of the plaintiff for Regular Second Appeal No.2170 of 2009 -2- family pension was rejected as the service of her husband was less than five years. However, vide order dated 29.9.2005, the High Court, while taking lenient view, granted family pension to the plaintiff. The family pension was released to the plaintiff after arranging the funds from the concerned authority. There was no delay in processing the case of the plaintiff for family pension, and, as such, she was not entitled to the relief of interest. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of family pension from 3.6.1976 and as the same has been released in the year 2006, she ought to have been granted interest for the said period. From the perusal of the judgments passed by the learned Courts below, it is clear that while passing the order dated 29.9.2005, the High Court had directed the defendants to release family pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the defendants were also granted liberty to determine the date from which the family pension was due and payable to the plaintiff. No order as regards payment of interest on the arrears of family pension was passed by the High Court. Under these circumstances, learned Courts below declined to go beyond the order of the High Court by allowing interest to the plaintiff on the arrears of family pension. Once the High Court granted the relief of family pension to the plaintiff and simultaneously, gave liberty to the defendants to determine the date from which the family pension was due and payable, no inference could be drawn that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the arrears of family pension. There being no reference in the order of the High Court to the entitlement of the plaintiff as regards interest on the arrears of family pension, the defendants were justified in releasing Regular Second Appeal No.2170 of 2009 -3- the arrears of family pension without paying any interest on the same. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to K.K.Mehtani vs State of Haryana and others, 2005 (2) RSJ 624, Smt. Prem Wati vs State of Haryana and others, 1999 (4) RSJ 482 and Shri R.S.Sehgal (Retired) vs Union of India and another, 1985 Punjab Law Reporter 418 to contend that as the interest was payable on the delayed payment of the arrears of family pension, the defendants had no authority to not to grant the same to the plaintiff. The aforementioned judgments passed by this Court, while setting aside the order of the authorities in terminating the services of the employee or declining the grant of family pension, have held that the authorities were also required to pay interest on the delayed payments. On the other hand, in the present case, the High Court while holding the plaintiff entitled to the grant of family pension did not mention any where that she was also entitled to the grant of interest on the arrears of family pension. As such, the aforementioned judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below, on appreciation of material evidence brought on record, do not call for any interference in the present second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellant, arises for determination. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (T.P.S.MANN) September 04, 2009 JUDGE Pds. Regular Second Appeal No.2170 of 2009 -4-