State of Punjab v. Kamla Rani

IN T

State of Punjab

Kamla Rani and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr for

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

impugned judgm (Senior Divisio respondent for Punjab against First Appellate C

2.

Bri

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Da

Versus d others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Pun r. Inayat Khullar, Advocate the respondents.

-.-

HARMA, J.

e present appeal is filed by ment and decree dated 28.08.199 on), Gurdaspur, whereby, the retiral benefits was allowed an the judgment and decree dated Court, vide judgment and decree ief facts of the case as mentioned "Brief facts which led to the Tarlok Nath Patwari now legal heirs joined his servi continuously worked upto certificate in the year 1954 s

8.9.1954 and the said certif

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-577-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 01.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA njab. the State of Punjab against 97 passed by the learned Civil Jud Civil Suit filed by the plaint nd the appeal filed by the State d 28.08.1997 was dismissed by e dated 29.07.2000. d in the civil suit are as under:- e filing of the present suit are t deceased and represented by ce as Patwari on 06.09.1954. June 1969 and he was gi showing his service with effect fr ficate was issued on 19.10.1965

dge tiff-e of that his He iven rom

¶5It

3.

written statemen barred by the p was dismissed i and is not maint On merits, it wa temporary basis Tarlok Nath w therefore he rem thus he served o treated for pens Rules. It has be voluntary retire

has been alleged that due to Tarlok Nath now deceased submitted request for volunt January 1969. He never e entire service record was go the post retirement benefits according to the rules. A no served on the defendant bef The writ petition filed by th limni on 07.07.1994 and it w this suit. Upon notice, the defendant nt. The defendant took the prel rinciples of 'Resjudicata' as the in limini on 07.07.1994 by the H tainable. The plaintiff has no cau as admitted that deceased Tarlo s and joined on 06.09.54, the r as transferred from Gurdaspur mained on long leave. He resign only for 9 years 2 months and 8 ion/retirement benefits as requir een averred that Tarlok Nath d ement and his work and condu

o some unavoidable circumstanc and represented by his legal he tarily retirement and left the job arned any adverse entry and ood. The defendants is not releas s after completion of the serv otice under section 80 C.P.C. w fore filing the suit but of no av he deceased was also dismissed was not dismissed on merit. He t-appellant appeared and filed liminary objections that the sui writ petition filed by Tarlok N High Court; the suit is time bar use of action to file the present s k Nath was working as Patwari remaining averments were deni r to Pathankot on 12.07.1966 ned from the service of Patwari 8 days and this period could not red under the Punjab Civil Servi deceased/plaintiff never applied uct was also not satisfactory. T

ces, eirs b in his sing vail. d in nce it is Nath rred suit. i on ied. and and t be ices

receipt of notice was challenged.

4.

Fro

5.

Aft Civil Judge (Sen decree dated 28 preferred which Gurdaspur. Hen SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea Courts below a respondent faile sufficient for th decrees passed b

7.

Per the judgments a benefits have rig

e under Section 80 CPC was ad The remaining allegations were om the pleadings of the parties, th

¶1Whether the suit is not m OPD.

¶2Whether the suit is barred OPD.

¶3Whether the suit is within

¶4Whether the plaintiff is en prayed for? OPP.

¶5Relief." ter hearing both the parties and nior Division), Grudaspur allow

8.08.1997. The appeal against h was also dismissed by the l nce, the appellant filed the presen S OF COUNSEL FOR THE PA arned counsel for the appellant c are erroneous on facts and law ed to prove on record that h he grant of benefit of pension. by the Courts below be set aside r contra, learned counsel for the and decrees passed by the Courts ghtly been granted to the respond

dmitted but its legality and valid e denied. he following issues were framed maintainable in the present for d under the principal of resjudica time? OPP. ntitled to the mandatory injunct perusing the whole record, learn wed the civil suit vide judgment the said judgment and decree w learned Additional District Jud nt appeal. ARTIES contends that judgments of both w. He further contends that he has rendered service which He prays that the judgments and the present appeal be allowe e respondent argues on the lines s below and contends that the ret dent.

dity d:- rm? ata? tion ned and dge, h is and ed. s of

8.

I h record of the cas

9.

Rel (Senior Division

have heard learned counsel for se. levant portion of the judgment n), Gurdaspur is reproduced as u "7. All these issues are in together.

¶8According to Sunil Kumar appointed as Patwari on 6 retirement in January 1969 retiral benefit. His father file High Court which was dismi file a civil suit. He alongwith of the deceased, who has died

¶9According to Shri Ram Lu as Patwari on 6.9.54. Tarlok

12.7.1966 when he was tran only served the department According to Ram Lubhay entitled to pension. Tarlok Tarlok Nath did not serve no filing of the suit.

¶10The fact that Tarlok Nat not disputed. The dispute is w in the department when he defendants has not placed o

the parties and perused the wh passed by the learned Civil Jud under:- nterconnected. Hence I take th r (PW1), Tarlok Nath his father w

6.9.1954 and he sought volunt

¶9His father did not receive a ed civil writ petition in the Hon issed on 7.7.94 with the direction h other plaintiffs are the legal he d during the pendency of the sui ubhaya (DW1), Tarlok Nath join k Nath proceeded on long leave nsferred to Pathankot. Tarlok N t for 9 year 2 month and 6 d ya, Tarlok Nath deceased is Nath sought voluntary retireme otice under section 80 CPC bef th joined as Patwari on 6.9.1954 with regard to his length of serv sought voluntary retirement. T n file service book of the decea

hole dge hem tary any 'ble n to eirs t. ned e on Nath day. not ent. fore 4 is

so that the court could ascer Tarlok Nath before he sough no. 2 of the plaint that Tarlo in January 1969 and this fac statement. This clearly sho retirement Tarlok Nath had service and defendant has fa of the deceased is only 9 yea under the Civil Services R pension is 20 years, but consistently held that person to the grant of pension and th grant of pension and the rel because the pension is recur action for filing the suit for month. So, in my opinion, th and other retiral benefits, u voluntarily retirement and up

21.3.97 his widow is entitled

¶11Further voluntary retirem as to dismiss or remove the only punishing authority/com rules could pass such an retirement sought by Tarlok from service."

rtain the length of service rende ht voluntary retirement. It is in p ok Nath sought voluntary retirem ct has not been denied in the writ ows that at the time of volunt d put in 14 years and 3 months ailed to prove that length of serv ars 3 months and 6 days. No do Rules qualifying for the grant t our Hon'ble High Court n who retires voluntarily is entit he relief of pension is entitled to lief of pension is never time bar rring cause of action. The cause pension arises at the end of ev e plaintiff in entitled to the pens upto the date on which he sou p to 21-3-97 when he died and af d to receive the widow pension. ment from service cannot be trea employees from service for wh mpetent authority under the serv order. So, in this case volunt Nath cannot be termed as remo

ered ara ment tten tary s of oubt t of has tled rred e of very sion ught fter ated hich tary

CONCLUSION

10.

A p these are self sp the retiral bene respondent-Tarl Nath sought vo never denied by at the time of vo of service. The service of Tarlo any infirmity in

11.

12.

Dec

13.

Pen

October 01, 202 A.Kaundal

Whethe

Whethe

N:- perusal of the judgments passe peaking and after taking into con efits have been granted to th lok Nath joined as Patwari on 0 oluntary retirement as per the re y the defendant-appellant in the oluntary retirement, Tarlok Nath erefore, the defendant-appellant ok Nath as 9 years, 3 months an the judgments and decrees passe e appeal stands dismissed. cree sheet be drawn. nding application(s), if any, also

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

ed by the Courts below show t nsideration the evidence on reco he respondent. The fact that

06.09.1954 is not disputed. Tar ecord in June, 1969. This fact w written statement. This shows t h had put in 14 years and 3 mon wrongly calculated the length nd 6 days. Therefore, I do not f ed by the Courts. stand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

that ord, rlok that nths h of