JUDGMENT :

Suvir Sehgal, J.

Appellants - defendants are in second appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

2. Factual matrix leading to the filing of the appeal is that Ram Bhagat, husband of the respondent - plaintiff was appointed as Cattle Scarer in Market Committee, Hisar on 10.4.1980. After 15 years' of service, he tendered his resignation, which was accepted on 08.08.1995 and he unfortunately expired on 14.09.2004. Claiming that she is entitled to family pension on account of service rendered by her husband prior to resigning, respondent - plaintiff filed a suit for declaration.

3. Upon notice appellants - defendants contested the suit by taking various objections. The stand taken by the defendants was that as the deceased had resigned from service, plaintiff is not entitled to family pension as provided in Rule 4.19 (a) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana. Plaintiff filed replication reasserting her claim. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues. After the parties led evidence and were heard, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010 dismissed the suit. An appeal filed by the respondent - plaintiff was accepted by the learned District Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 13.02.2020, judgment of the Trial Court was reversed and the suit was decreed. Appellants - defendants have approached this Court in the above backdrop.

4. Mr. Dwivedi, counsel for the appellant submits that the First Appellate Court has proceeded on a wrong premise by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Mehar Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2003 (1) SCT 453 as the judgment passed by the writ Court has been reversed by a Division Bench in LPA-181-2003, decided on 07.01.2009. It is also his submission that other judgments relied upon by the learned First Appellate Court have been held to be not applicable by the Division Bench.

5. Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

6. The matter in issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Division Bench in LPA No.181 of 2003 titled "State of Punjab and others Versus Mehar Singh", decided on 07.01.2009. After examining judgments rendered by Single Benches of this Court in Ganga Bishan Versus State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SLR 59, State of Punjab Versus Gurkeerat Singh, 2002 (4) RSJ 440 and Haryana State Versus Madan Pal Ahlawat, 2002 (4) SCT 671, which have been relied upon by the First Appellate Court, the Division Bench has held that the judgments are in-applicable as the Court did not consider the effect of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. Following the dictum of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Versus Braj Nandan Singh (2005) 8 SCC 325, the Division Bench has observed as under:

"In view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that a government employee, who has resigned from service, is not entitled to grant of pension and other retiral benefits in view of Rule 7.5 of PCS Rules.

Still further, in our opinion, provisions of Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as relied upon in the judgment on behalf of the employee/government servant lays down the amount of pension admissible to a government employee, who has retired from service, and does not confer an independent right to claim pension. We find that the reference to Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules in the judgments relied upon on behalf of the employee/government servant is provided in the Rules applicable in the State of Haryana only. Thus reference to Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules on behalf of the respondent Mehar Singh in the letters patent appeal and the petitioner Nirmaljit Kaur in the writ petition for grant of pension on completion of 10 years service is totally misplaced, as in the Punjab Civil Services Rules applicable to