R.S.A. No. 2613 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2613 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.8.2010 ... Municipal Council, Narnaul through its Chairman ................Appellant vs. Mahabir Parshad and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate for the appellant ... K.C. Puri, J. CM No. 7841 C of 2010 There is a delay of 277 days in re-filing the present appeal. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application. CM No. 7842 C of 2010 There is a delay of 241 days in filing the present appeal. The same also stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application. RSA No. 2613 of 2010 This is regular second appeal directed by Municipal Council, R.S.A. No. 2613 of 2010 -2- Narnaul, against the judgment dated 28.4.2008 passed by Sh. M.P. Mehndiratta, District Judge, Narnaul, vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 16.10.2006 passed by Sh. Sanjeev Arya, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, was partly accepted. Plaintiff- Mahabir Parsad filed a suit for declaration that plaintiff and proforma respondents No. 4 and 5 being the legal heirs of Surji Devi, are entitled to get ex gratia amount of Rs.30,000, GIS amount of Rs.30,000/- and funeral ceremony expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that Surji Devi was mother of plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 4 and 5. She died during tenure of service as Sweeper in Municipal Committee, Narnaul on 20.8.1988. The plaintiff and proforma defendants had obtained succession certificate on 29.7.1994 from the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Narnaul. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have not paid the ex gratia amount, GIS amount and Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. Notice under Section 80 CPC , was issued on 24.9.1997. Hence the suit. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed written statement controverting the averments made in the plaint. They took preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable and is bad for want of notice under Section 58 of the Haryana Municipal Committee Act. On merits, it was denied that answering defendants did not release ex gratia and GIS amount deliberately in favour of plaintiff and proforma defendants, rather they never sought any claim by way of an application in this regard. Since, plaintiff and proforma defendants did not claim amount well within a stipulated period, therefore, ex R.S.A. No. 2613 of 2010 -3- gratia, GIS amount was not paid to them. Further there is no provision to give any amount for funeral ceremony. Replication was not filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get amount of Rs.30,000 as ex gratia and amount of Rs.30,000/- as GIS and Rs.5,000/- for funeral ceremony of Smt. Surja Devi alongwith interest @ 18% P.A.? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad under Section 50 of Haryana Municipal Committee Act? OPD 5. Relief. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding that plaintiff and LRs of Surji Devi are not entitled to claim Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses as there is no provision. The GIS amount was ordered to be paid alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of Surji Devi till payment, vide judgment dated 16.10.2006 passed by Sh. Sanjeev Arya, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul. Defendants did not filed any appeal. However, Mahabir Parsad-plaintiff filed the appeal. That appeal was partly accepted and defendants were ordered to pay the amount of ex gratia under Rules, R.S.A. No. 2613 of 2010 -4- vide judgment dated 28.4.2008, passed by Sh. M.P. Mehndiratta, District Judge, Narnaul. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 28.4.2008, granting the amount of ex gratia, the present regular second appeal has been filed by the Municipal Council, Narnaul. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred. Surji Devi, died on 20.8.1988 and the suit has been filed in the year 1998. It is further contended that the amount of ex gratia is payable only to the dependents. So, prayer has been made for acceptance of the appeal. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the file of the case. The regular second appeal can only be entertained in case any substantial question of law is involved. The defendants in the written statement itself have pleaded that since the amount was not claimed and on that account, the same was not disbursed. So, far as the submission made by counsel for the appellant that since plaintiff and other legal heirs are not dependents, on that account they are not entitled for ex gratia amount, is concerned, the Ist Appellate Court has observed that legal heirs of Banwari have been given the ex gratia amount and as such the defendants cannot discriminate between the similarly situated employees. The plea of limitation is not available to the defendants as the dues of the employee, more so, ex gratia amount is the trust money lying with the department. So, I have no hesitation in holding that no question of law, R.S.A. No. 2613 of 2010 -5- much less the substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. CM No. 7843 C of 2010 for staying the execution of the decree stands declined, as the main appeal has been dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 20.8.2010 Judge chugh