LPA No. 968 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 968 of 2010 Date of decision 19.7 .2011 Bharto Devi . Appellant Versus . Union of India and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.RS Panghal , Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.K. Hooda, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 5 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 19.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that in the year 2010, the appellant could not have challenged the orders dated 17.12.1998 (P1), 11.3.1999 (P.3) and 8.4.2000 (P.5) on the ground that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the Court. As the learned Single Judge did not opine on the question of family pension, we were persuaded to consider the argument independently of the aforesaid order of termination. However, after issuing notice of the appeal, we found that the question of pension and family pension is directly connected with the order of termination. Infact without successfully challenging the order of termination, the claim for pension and family pension could not be considered. 2. The husband of the appellant was enrolled as a Constable on LPA No. 968 of 2010 2 2.12.1982 with the Commandant, 24th Battalion, 'B' Company, Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Force, Chandigarh. He was placed under suspension on 25.7.1998 and a departmental enquiry was held. He was held guilty of all the charges namely man-handling with Thawar Lal after consuming liquor and there was no improvement in his behavior despite having been punished many a times earlier. The allegation was based on the incident dated 16.7.1998 in which Shri Thawar Lal was also arrayed as an accused. He had earlier suffered four major and six minor punishments and out of the aforesaid punishment four major punishment and one minor punishments have been awarded for the offences of consuming liquor and the acts of indiscipline. He had been found habitual of consuming liquor and not keeping discipline. For series of mis- conduct, on 7.3.1998 he was charge sheeted and on appeal, the Director General of Police Indore had taken him back in service after inflicting major punishment. Likewise major punishments were awarded to him 9.6.1998 and 14.1.1998 for consuming liquor and loosing self control and during this period he abused his seniors and colleagues. Accordingly he was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.12.1998 (P.1). The appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 11.3.1999 (P.3) and his further appeal also met the same fate vide order dated 8.4.2000 (P.5). Once an employee is dismissed from service then he has no right to claim pension which stand forfeited. In the absence of pension, there cannot be question of family pension. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellant to site any rule or regulation which may help in advancing the case of the appellant but no such rule, regulation or judgement has been cited. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in the absence of any LPA No. 968 of 2010 3 rule or regulation providing for family pension to the widow of a dismissed employee, we cannot entertain the appeal and necessarily the appellant who is widow of a dismissed employee could not claim pension unless she is able to successfully challenge the order of dismissal passed in the year 1998 and for delay of 10 years, the writ petition has been rightly dismissed. The appeal is devoid of any merit and does not warrant admission. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 27.7.2011 Judge okg