R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.1.2011 Dhan Pal ......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Surinder Deswal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the wife of the plaintiff namely Phoolwati was employed as Staff Nurse in Primary Health Centre on 29.12.1987. Phoolwati joined her service on 8.1.1988. Her service would have been regularised on completion of two years of service. Phoolwati died on 23.2.1990. Family pension was granted to the plaintiff with other service benefits. Vide letter dated 24.2.1993, defendant No.3 informed the plaintiff that he was not entitled to the relief of family pension. Hence, the amount of R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2010 2 family pension made to the plaintiff was sought to be recovered. Defendants in their written statement averred that the plaintiff had earlier filed suits on the same cause of action and the same were dismissed on 4.4.1994 and 12.11.1996. The plaintiff was not entitled to family pension as Phoolwati was an ad hoc employee and due to inadvertence, a wrong entry had been made in the record that Phoolwati had been appointed on regular basis and because of this mistake, family pension was allowed to the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether stoppage of disbursement of pension vide letter dated 24.2.1993 and demand of recovery of disputed amount in the said letter and subsequent notices are illegal, null and void against the principles of natural justice are liable to be set aside on the grounds as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction on the grounds as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If yes, at what rate ? OPP 4.Whetherplaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction on the grounds as alleged? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPP R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2010 3 6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPP 7. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2009. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiff had earlier filed the suit on the same cause of action and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.4.1994 with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a fresh suit and the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 12.11.1996. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 24, 2011 anita R.S.A.No. 1007 of 2010 4