RSA No.603 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.603 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.7.2010 Parwati Devi ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1 Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The appellant is a widow of late Sh.Chhaju Ram, an employee of respondent-State of Haryana who died on 26.6.1958 after serving the respondent-Department. The appellant moved an application for grant of pensionary benefits and made representations but without result. Ultimately, she served a notice under Section 80 CPC upon the respondents but in vain. Aggrieved against the inaction of the respondents, the appellant filed civil suit No.209 of 2006 seeking a decree for declaration praying that the action of the authorities in not allowing the appellant the benefits of family pension scheme was wrong, illegal, against law and as such, she was entitled to pensionary benefits under the family pension scheme w.e.f 26.6.1958 along with arrears. The aforesaid civil suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 3.10.2006. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, RSA No.603 of 2009 2 Narnaul, which was allowed and a decree was passed in her favour to the effect that she would be entitled to family pension of Rs.125/- per month w.e.f 1.4.1979 on account of death of her husband. In the present appeal, the appellant has raised a grievance that the family pension granted to her has been wrongly fixed at a lesser rate and she has not been given the benefits in its true spirit and the appellant is entitled to full family pension and further that she is entitled to the pension from the date of death of her husband i.e. 26.6.1958. Thus, according to the counsel for the appellant, the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: “(i) Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of family pension with effect from 26.6.1958 i.e the date of death of her husband? (ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for Revision of family pension from time to time as per the rules of family pension revisions? (iii) Whether the Ld. Lower Courts have committed error in interpreting the provisions of Family pension and law relating to the grant of family pension? (iv) Whether appellant is entitled for interest on the amount of arrears of family pension?” I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees under appeal. It is not in dispute that the judgment and decree dated 20.8.2007 passed by the District Judge, Narnaul in favour of the appellant was challenged by the respondent-State of Haryana in this Court by way of Regular Second Appeal No.21 of 2008. The aforesaid regular second appeal was dismissed on 3.10.2008 upholding the impugned judgment RSA No.603 of 2009 3 and decree dated 20.8.2007 passed by the District Judge, Narnaul in the presence of the counsel for the appellant. It is a matter of record that the appellant had filed the present appeal, claiming enhanced pension, on 22.9.2008 i.e. prior to the decision in RSA No.21 of 2008 yet no such argument was raised before this Court on her behalf in RSA No.21 of 2008 particularly, when the appellant had a right to claim such a relief by raising argument on the basis of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. It may also be noticed that even otherwise, the relief as sought for in this appeal was never claimed by the appellant in the suit. A perusal of the facts as noticed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul in its judgment dated 3.10.2006 shows that the appellant had sought a declaration that she was entitled to pensionary benefits under the Rule which lays down that a minimum pension could be allowed in her favour per month under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. Admittedly, the aforesaid family scheme had come into force on 1.7.1964 and therefore, the same cannot be made applicable prior to the aforesaid date. There is no material on record on the basis of which the benefit as claimed by the appellant in this appeal can be granted to her. Thus, keeping in view the fact that judgment and decree under appeal has already been upheld by this Court and despite being present, no such claim was raised by the appellant at that time, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and decree, by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. July 7, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE