VINEY MITTAL, J.

( 1 ) THE defendants State of Punjab and others having lost before the learned first Appellate Court have approached this Court through the present regular Second Appeal.

( 2 ) A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff Smt. Parmeshwari devi widow of Madan Lal. It was claimed by her that Madan Lal had joined as sub Inspector on July 15, 1954 in the Department of Consolidation of holding. Earlier he was posted in the office of S. O. Faridkot but later on he was posted in the office of C. O. Dhudi. The posts of Sub Inspector were abolished and thereafter the services of Madan Lal were dispensed with in the year 1967.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff claimed that Madan Lal, prior to the dispensation of his services had completed 13 years of service, and therefore, was entitled to pensionary benefits. Madan Lal died on May 1, 1998. Plaintiff claimed that Madan Lal was also entitled to pensionary benefits and in any case the plaintiff was entitled to family pension on that account.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants. The necessary facts given by the plaintiff were admitted. However, the defendants maintained that neither madan Lal was entitled to pension nor any family pension could be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that Madan Lal, at the time of dispensation of his services in the year 1967 had completed a period of 13 years. He was working to pensionable post. It was thus, held that as per the Rules, Madan Lal was entitled to pension. After his death, plaintiff was also held to family pension. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and her suit was decreed. The learned first Appellate Court, however, restricted the relief granted to the plaintiff for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

( 6 ) NO question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal dismissed.