IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 279 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 16, 2011 Union of India and others ....Appellants Versus Sewa Rani .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Central Govt. Counsel for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner-respondent-Smt. Sewa Rani is entitled to family pension on account of death of her son, who died in harness while working as Pioneer with GREF. Before the learned Single Judge it was, however, disputed that the pension of the husband of the petitioner was only Rs.1,000/-. The aforesaid amount was necessary to be considered by virtue of requirement of the instructions dated 1.1.1998 which stipulate that the income criteria in respect of parents would be that their earning LPA No. 279 of 2011 -2- is not more than Rs.2,550/- per month. They were entitled to get family pension at 30% of basic pay of the deceased employee subject to a minimum of Rs.1,275/- per month with a further requirement that they were to produce an annual certificate to the effect that their earning is not more than Rs.2,550/- per month. While interpreting the aforesaid instructions, the learned Single Judge found that the pension earned by the husband of the petitioner-respondent was less than Rs.2,550/- per month. 2. However, Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a latest certificate dated 9.10.2010 (A-1) concerning payment of pension by a bank to show that the pension of the husband of the petitioner-respondent is infact Rs.5,375/- (Rs.3,500/- pension + Rs.1979/- DA+ Rs.300/- medical). The aforesaid certificate has been obtained after the delivery of the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge which obviously is for use in this appeal. On the basis of the aforesaid document, Mr. Bansal has argued that the claim of the petitioner-respondent is liable to be rejected because the income of her husband is more than Rs.2,550/- per month as per the instructions dated 1.1.1998. 3. The argument raised overlooks a pertinent fact. The limit of Rs.2,550/- has been fixed by taking into consideration the amount of pensionary benefits as on 1.1.1996. Thereafter pay and pension has been revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and, therefore, once on the basis of the LPA No. 279 of 2011 -3- unrevised pension as on 1.1.1996 the claim has been found to be meritorious then at this stage banking upon the revised rate of pension it cannot be argued that the total amount of pension has now introduced and, therefore, the petitioner-respondent has become dis-entitled to the grant of pension. 4. We are further of the view that this appeal is an illustration of unnecessary litigation initiated at the instance of Union of India. We find that the appellants have failed to keep in view the latest National Litigation Policy as has been reported in (2010 6 SCC J-17). In paragraph VI, the issue of filing of appeals has been dealt with. However, the appeals concerning service matter have been dealt with in Clause D, which reads as under:- “VI. Filing of appeals (A) to (C) x x x x (D) In service matters, no appeal will be filed in cases where: (a) the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion; (b) the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.” (emphasis added) 5. A perusal of the aforesaid Clause 'D' would show that no appeal is to be filed in cases where the matter pertains to pension or LPA No. 279 of 2011 -4- retiral benefits, provided it does not involve any principle or financial implications. In the present case, there is hardly any financial implications and the arguments raised by obtaining the latest certificate of pension given to the husband of the petitioner-respondent is wholly unwarranted. If in the original instructions issued more than 12 years ago, the rate of pension has been kept on the basis of cut of date of 1.1.1996 which has been necessarily revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 then it would not lie in the mouth of the appellant-Union of India to argue that the revised rate shall be taken into account to non suit the petitioner- respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is a frivolous piece of litigation, which could have been easily avoided. Thus, it fails and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be deposited with the Member Secretary, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) February 16, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I