R.S.A. No. 1739 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1739 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.4.2009 Secretary to Government Punjab & others .......... Appellants Versus Rajinder Kumari Dhawan & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2009, passed by the learned Courts below, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondents, on the basis of compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 to 6. The plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration, claiming that they would be entitled to proportionate share in the amounts of G.P.F. , DCRG, leave encashment, pension, other emoluments and also for suitable job on compassionate grounds, on account of the death of Avinash Chander Dhawan deceased. A prayer for mandatory injunction, directing defendants No. 1 to 3 to make the payment of proportionate share of plaintiffs, out of the service benefits, was also made. R.S.A. No. 1739 of 2009 2 Consequential relief of permanent injunction, was sought restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 from delivering / releasing the entire amount of service benefits of deceased Avinash Chander Dhawan to defendants No. 4 to 6. The suit was contested, and entitlement of the plaintiffs to claim the benefits, was contested by defendants No. 4 to 6. The plea taken by the appellants / defendants No. 1 to 3 was only, that they would release benefits only on presentation of succession certificate. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 to 6, compromised the matter, and prayed for disposal of the suit on the basis of written compromise, entered into between the parties. The defendants No. 1 to 3, consented to passing of the consent decree. It was on account of compromise duly accepted by appellants that no decision was taken on the dispute raised between the parties. The consent decree was passed by learned trial Court. Even though, no appeal was competent against the consent decree, in view of the provisions of Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the State chose to file the appeal, which stands dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, has not been able to point out any substantial question of law, which may be said to arise in the present case. However, the learned counsel for the State vehemently contended, that the compromise entered into between the parties i.e. the R.S.A. No. 1739 of 2009 3 plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 to 6, could not bind the State, as the pension was to be paid as per the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, only to the widow, and in case, there was dispute regarding status of the plaintiff / widow, it was not for the Court to have decreed the suit on the basis of compromise. This contention of the learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab is to be noticed to be rejected. The compromise was consented too by the State before the learned trial Court, and there was no adjudication about the dispute of relationship of plaintiff No.1 i.e. the deceased. The status of plaintiff / respondent was thus accepted as widow, as per compromise. The appellants never disputed that plaintiff was not the widow. Only stand taken was that succession certificate was required before release of benefits. Once under the compromise, the status of the parties is admitted, and consent was given by the State, and consequence thereto no adjudication was done by the Court, and a compromise decree was passed, it is not open to the State, now to challenge the said decision, in view of the statutory bar qua maintainability of appeal. No merit. Dismissed. 27.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE