ORDER :

1. The delay of 175 days in filing the special leave petition is condoned.

2. This petition is directed against order dated 15.1.2008 of the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby he declined to entertain the second appeal filed by the petitioners against judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhatinda (hereinafter described as, "the lower appellate Court") who partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhatinda (hereinafter described as, "the trial Court").

3. The respondent's husband Shri Kartara, who was employed as Gatekeeper in the Northern Railway, was compulsorily retired on 14.1.1970. After one year and four months, Shri Kartara died leaving behind his widow, who being a rustic village woman had no idea about her right to receive monetary benefits in lieu of the services rendered by her husband. After many years, some well- wisher appears to have advised the respondent to represent to the Railway Authorities for payment of family pension etc. The respondent accordingly submitted to application dated 19.3.2002 to the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway for grant of pension, gratuity, provident fund, medical allowance, group insurance amount and other benefits including family pension, but did not evoke any response from the concerned authority. She then filed suit, which was registered as Suit No. 769/2004 for grant of a declaration that she is entitled to monetary benefits i.e., family pension, gratuity etc.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners, it was pleaded that the Court at Bhatinda did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the same was barred by limitation. On merits, the petitioners did not deny that Shri Kartara was employed as Gatekeeper and that he was compulsorily retired from service but they questioned the locus of the respondent to get family pension etc. by asserting that there was no proof of her marriage with the deceased.

5. The respondent filed replication and reiterated that being a widow of the deceased she was entitled to get family pension, gratuity etc.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues :

"1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether suit is within limitation? OPP

3. Whether Plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit? OPD

4. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

5. Whether the suit is false and frivolous to the knowledge of plaintiff? OPD

6. Whether suit is bad for non-service of notice under Section 80, CPC? OPD

7. Relief?"

7. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial Court answered issue Nos. 1 to 6 in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit in the following terms :

"In view of my finding under the aforesaid issue suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed with cost whereby plaintiff being the widow of deceased - Kartara is held entitled to receive the minimum provident fund amount, gratuity, medical allowance, Group insurance benefit and other benefits from 14.7.1970 (his date of retirement being 14.1.70) and 6 months' time is normally exhausted in departmental proceedings till date of actual payment along with interest @ 6% per annum and thereafter minimum regular family pension under Rules. The defendants are directed to make the payment expeditiously within three months ................"

8. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the trial Court by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was partly allowed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2006. While upholding the decree of the trial Court, insofar as it related to the respondent's entitlement to receive family pension and gratuity, the lower appellate Court set aside the decree relating to payment of other financial benefits li