ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. - (1.) THE substantial question of law that arises in the present appeal is "whether the appellant is entitled to receive the gratuity and family pension on account of death of her husband, Jag Ram who was a regular employee with the respondents but had not joined his duties on account of ill health" ?
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgement and decree dated 16.3.1999, passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhiwani and the judgment dated 9.9.1999, passed by District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby her suit for declaration for declaring her to be entitled to pensionary benefits of her husband Jag Ram (since deceased) was dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff's husband Jag Ram was appointed as a work charged Beldar vide letter dated 10.1.1977, issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Department, Division No. 2, Bhiwani. His services were later on regularized vide letter dated 23.3.1984. The aforementioned Jag Ram, during the course of his employment remained sick and expired on 1.12.1985. It was prayed by the appellant that as Jag Ram was a permanent and regular employee of thE respondents, therefore, after his death, the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to the benefits of family pension, gratuity and employment under the Government policy. It was further averred that although the appellant has been given a job, no amount of gratuity has been paid to her. Hence, the suit was filed.
(3.) THE trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the pension and gratuity of her deceased husband as Jag Ram was a regular employee of the Public Health Department. However, on the question, whether the suit was barred by limitation or not, it was held that as the suit has been filed nine years after the demise of Jag Ram, hence the suit was hopelessly time barred and consequently the trial Court dismissed as suit.;