IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 12242 of 2007 Date of Decision: 4.5.2009. Neelam Kanwal --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath & Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner's husband namely Daya Shankar Kanwal was serving with the State of Punjab as a Clerk and joined the duty on 11.10.1958. It is admitted case of the parties that he remained absent from duty w.e.f 1.5.1984 to 31.7.1997. He also attained the age of superannuation during this period i.e on 31.5.1997. He died on 11.5.2000. The petitioner applied for family pension and her case was forwarded by the Chief Engineer to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Kandi Canal Circle, Hoshiarpur. It appears that on consideration of the case of the petitioner the State Govt. passed the order treating the period of absence as “dies non”. An intimation was also given to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.8.2004. The Accountant General, Punjab was also communicated vide letter dated 1.6.2005 (Annexure P-6). The Accountant General was accordingly requested vide CWP. No. 12242 of 2007 -2- aforesaid letter to settle the family pension of the deceased. Respondent no.4-Accountant General in the reply has raised two objections. One that the deceased husband of the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.1997 when he was alive and thus the State Govt. should have recommended the case for pension and not the family pension. The other objection is that why the services of the petitioner were not terminated when he remained absent from duty for such a long period. The stand of the respondents is that the deceased employee never applied for the pension and remained absent for a period of about 13 years. It is further admitted that the services of the deceased were never terminated. It is also admitted position that no enquiry was conducted against the deceased in regard to his absence. His period of absence has already been treated as “Dies Non”. In view of the above position, the respondents cannot deny the pension, if, he is otherwise entitled to under the rules and had a qualifying service to the credit of the deceased husband of the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner's husband did not apply for pension earlier does not mean that the pension is not payable. It is settled position that pension is not a concession or bounty. It is the right of the person for the services rendered by him. Since the period of absence has already been treated as “Dies Non”, the respondents will settle initially the pension case of the husband of the petitioner as he was alive at the time of superannuation and thereafter the family pension in accordance with rules. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of service of certified copy of this order upon the CWP. No. 12242 of 2007 -3- competent authority. The petitioner shall not be denied family pension on the basis of objections raised by the Accountant General. After the death of the employee, these objections are not justified. Disposed of as such. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 4.5.2009 lucky