Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab & Another vs Gurmit Kaur & Another on 4 May, 2009
R.S.A. No. 1862 of 2009 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 1862 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 4.5.2009
State of Punjab & another
.......... Appellants
Versus
Gurmit Kaur & another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No. 5483-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 136 days, in filing the appeal.
The application is supported by an affidavit, wherein the reason for condoning the delay has been explained, to be on account of administrative procedural delay.
The reasons stated in the application, make out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
Accordingly, this application is allowed, delay of 136 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
R.S.A. No. 1862 of 2009
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and R.S.A. No. 1862 of 2009 2 decree dated 29.8.2008, passed by the learned Courts below, decreeing the suit for declaration claiming service benefits of deceased Jasbir Singh Constable.
By way of suit, the plaintiff had claimed share in the retiral benefits of deceased Jasbir Singh Constable.
However, during the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise, which was duly endorsed by the State i.e. the appellants herein.
In pursuance to the compromise, entered into between the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as having been compromised. Even though the defendant / appellant was party to the said compromise, having consented the same. The appeal was filed before the learned Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur, to challenge the decree, though it was not permissible, in view of the bar under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the bar under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal against compromise decree was not competent.
It is pleaded in the appeal, that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law :-
Whether respondent No.1 i.e. mother of deceased was entitled to any part of pension in contravention of the Rules ?
The substantial question of law deserves to be answered against the appellant as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chanhal Devi Vs. Union of India, 2007(1) RSJ 57 has held, that the rule by which R.S.A. No. 1862 of 2009 3 the dependent mother is denied the right of pension are ultra virus the constitution. Otherwise also in view of the bar under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure the appeal is not competent.
No merit.
Dismissed.
4.5.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE