Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Order: 03.10.2008 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Smt. Parwati Devi and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, AAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. Pardeep Salath, Advocate for respondent no.1. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.No.66-C of 2008 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 47 days in filing the appeal. Heard counsel for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application and as the delay is neither malafide nor grossly negligent, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.21 of 2008 The State of Haryana, challenges the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2007, passed by the District Judge, Narnaul, accepting the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and as a result decreeing the suit filed by the respondent. One Chhaju Ram was appointed as a Patwari in the year 1945- 46 and passed away while in service on 26.06.1958. The State of Haryana issued instructions dated 19.03.1981 titled as “Liberalisation of Pensionary Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) -2- benefits on the recommendations of Pay Commission”. The above instructions, granted pension to widows/families of employees who had retired before 01.07.1964 when the family pension scheme was not in force. In view of these instructions, Smt. Parwati Devi-respondent No.1 made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, but her claim for family pension was rejected, compelling her to file a suit. The State of Haryana opposed the prayer in the suit by stating that she was not entitled to pensionary benefits as there were no instructions vide which the family members of deceased employee who died in the year 1958 would be entitled to receive family pension. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the family pension on the grounds mentioned in the suit? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 5. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 6. Relief. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that it was filed 45 years after the death of Chhaju Ram and as on the date of Chhaju Ram's demise, there was no provision in the rules providing, for grant of family pension. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent filed an appeal. The District Judge, Narnaul, accepted the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit by Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) -3- placing reliance upon the instructions issued by the State of Haryana on 19.03.1981 granting the benefit of family pension to widows/families of employees, who had retired before 01.07.1964, when the family pension scheme was not in force. Counsel for the appellants submits that the suit was filed 45 years after the demise of Chhaju Ram and, therefore the trial Court, rightly dismissed it as barred by time. The first appellate Court committed an error of jurisdiction in decreeing the suit, as in the year 1958, there was no scheme for grant of family pension. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the right to claim family pension was conferred for the first time, vide instructions dated 19.03.1981. The respondent's prayer for grant of family pension under these instructions, was rejected and, therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the right to receive a pension is a recurring cause of action and, therefore, a plea of limitation in cases relating to pension is not available to the State. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. Chhaju Ram, the respondent's husband passed away on 26.06.1958, while working as a Patwari. On this date, the relevant instructions did not provide for grant of family pension to the family members or the widow of a deceased employee. However, on 19.03.1981, Secretary to Government, Haryana, Finance Department issued instructions titled as “Liberalisation of Pensionary benefits on the recommendations of Pay Commission”. A relevant extract thereof reads as follows:- "A minimum pension of Rs.125/- p.m. may also be allowed to the widows/families of the employees who may not have opted for the Family Pension Scheme 1964 or who had retired before 1st Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 2008 (O&M) -4- July, 1964, when the family pension scheme was not in force." The right of widows/families of the employees who had retired before 01.07.1964 to receive family pension was conferred for the first time,pursuant to these instructions. The appellants have failed to place on record any instructions/rules or regulations modifying these instructions or withdrawing them. As these instructions are in force and the respondent is entitled to benefit thereunder, the first appellate Court did not commit any error in accepting the appeal, reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court and decreeing the suit. The right to apply for family pension was conferred, for the first time, on 19.03.1981. The right to claim a pension is a recurring cause of action, the suit, therefore, was not barred by time In view of what has been stated herein above, no question of law muchless a substantial question of law arrises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. October 03, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE