Judgment

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. :-

CM-4892-C-2014

1. Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 272 days in filing the appeal.

2. Notice of the application was given to the respondents on 26.05.2015.

3. Though reply to the said application has been filed but no objection qua the condonation of delay has been raised as only the facts of the present case has been mentioned qua the entitlement of the appellant for the family pension.

4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances that the present Regular Second Appeal is pending for the last nine years and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen seeking claim of family pension, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay of 272 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-4893-C-2014

5. As prayed for, the application is allowed.

RSA-2015-2014

6. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decrees of the Court below dated 11.08.2011 and 21.01.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Fatehabad and District Judge, Fatehabad respectively by which, the claim of the appellant to be treated as legally wedded wife of Molu Ram @ Dhan Singh son of Shri Jeewan Ram has been denied.

7. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

8. Mollu Ram was working as Assistant Sub Inspector with the Punjab Armed Police and ultimately retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 21.06.1969 after seeking voluntary retirement. After the retirement, he was drawing his pension and unfortunately died on 21.04.2005. After the death of Mollu Ram, the claim of the appellant-plaintiff for the grant of family pension was not accepted on the ground that at the time when Mollu Ram retired from service on 21.06.1969, in the pension papers, the name of the wife was mentioned as Nanhi Devi and not that of Savitri Devi i.e. the appellant.

9. As the benefit of family pension was not being allowed in the favour of the appellant, the appellant filed a civil suit claiming the benefit that she be treated as the legally wedded wife of Mollu Ram. In the civil suit, she averred that first wife of Mollu Ram namely Nanhi Devi died on 21.05.1967 i.e. prior to the date when Mollu Ram sought voluntary retirement on 21.06.1969 and thereafter, Mollu Ram married the appellant out of which relationship, five children were born. She placed on record the ration card and other certificates wherein, Mollu Ram was described as husband of the appellant.

10. The civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that though certain documents have been brought on record such as ration card etc. to claim that Mollu Ram contracted the second marriage with the appellant but as the marriage between the appellant-plaintiff and Mollu Ram has not brought to the notice of the Department concerned, no relief can be given for the grant of benefit of family pension in favour of the plaintiff after the death of Mollu Ram especially when there is no record with the Department concerned, presented by Mollu Ram, that he had married the appellant-plaintiff after his retirement.

11. Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed on the same grounds. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.

12. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the present Regular Second Appeal, an application was moved by the appellant to bring on record the additional evidence. By the said evidence, the judgm