RSA NO. 1708 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1708 of 2008 Decided on : 10-03-2009 Haryana State through Collector, Karnal and another ....Appellants VERSUS Shashi Bala and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. O.P.Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Paramjit Jakhar, Advocate for respondent no.2. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court dated 7.1.2008. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 Shashi Bala had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is entitled to Provident Fund and Gratuity and benefits of pension and compensatory job etc. of Head Constable Jagdish Chand who was serving with the Haryana Police as she is his real daughter. It is pleaded that her mother had already died 10 years ago and Smt. Rameshwari Devi arrayed as defendant no.3 was widow of Om Parkash, uncle of the plaintiff and that she was having three children from alliance of her deceased husband. It was alleged that defendant no.3 is not legally wedded wife of deceased Jagdish Chand but she has claimed that she is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased and claimed provident RSA NO. 1708 of 2008 2 fund, gratuity, compensatory job and other service benefits available to the L.Rs of the deceased by claiming her status to be that of a wife. It is pleaded that plaintiff had approached the various authorities for redressal of her grievance but to no avail and therefore she was constrained to file the present suit. The suit was contested by the appellants who were arrayed as defendant nos. 1 and 2 and it was pleaded that deceased had nominated Smt. Rameshwari Devi, defendant no.3 as his nominee for the G.P.F account and as per nomination the amount was released to her and therefore, the plaintiff-respondent no.1 was not entitled to any benefit on that account. Smt. Rameshwari Devi-defendant no.3 pleaded that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and it was pleaded by her that deceased Jagdish Chand has left behind her, Raj Kumar, Neeral Lal and Sanni who were dependents upon him and that she was his legally wedded wife after entering into Kareva marriage with him after the death of her husband Om Parkash and since then she was residing with him as his wife and therefore she is legally entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased and therefore she was entitled to service benefits on account of his service. Parties went to trial on the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for?OPP. 2. If issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. RSA NO. 1708 of 2008 3 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file and maintain the present suit?OPD. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 6. Relief. The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent no.1 declaring her entitled for only service benefits i.e. GIS, leave encashment, GPF amount, ex gratia and police welfare fund in equal share with defendant no3 and her sons. In appeal, the findings of the learned Trial Court were upset. While accepting the appeal, learned First Appellate Court held the plaintiff- respondent no.1 entitled to the arrears of Provident Fund, GIS, gratuity and other pecuniary benefits but did not grant her family pension. A decree for permanent injunction was also passed restraining the appellants from disbursing any pensionary benefits to defendant no.3-Rameshwari Devi. The State of Haryana has come up in regular second appeal. It is pertinent to mention here that Rameshwari Devi , the person who was affected the most from the decision of the learned First Appellate Court had not challenged the findings at all. In this view of the matter, it is not understandable as to how the State of Haryana is affected by the decision of the First Appellate Court as it was the matter inter se between the plaintiff-respondent no.1 and performa respondent no.2. If the findings of the learned First Appellate Court are to be perused, the entire brunt of the same are upon performa respondent no.2 Rameshwari Devi but since she has not cared to challenge the same, the findings qua her have become final. RSA NO. 1708 of 2008 4 In this view of the matter, the instant appeal preferred by the State of Haryana is totally misconceived. Besides, no infirmity has been shown by the learned counsel for the State in the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court and accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. March 10 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge