Judgment 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 judgment 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. 3. Briefly, the facts of fee case are that the plaintiffs 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 Jai 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. 4. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs 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. 5. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bhiwani, who vide his judgment dated 9.9.1999, also dismissed the appeal, however, on different grounds. It was held by learned District Judge, Bhiwani that the cause of action for claiming gratuity and pensionary benefits is a recurring one and therefore, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bhiwani, who vide his judgment dated 9.9.1999, also dismissed the appeal, however, on different grounds. It was held by learned District Judge, Bhiwani that the cause of action for claiming gratuity and pensionary benefits is a recurring one and therefore, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time. However, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that as Jag Ram (deceased) was on sick leave w.e.f. 14.11.1983 to 29.2.1984, i.e. prior to the order of making him regular in service and as he never joined his duties till death, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any pensionary benefits. It is against these judgments that the present appeal has been filed. 6. It has come in evidence that the deceased Jag Ram was a permanent and regular employee of the defendants having been regularized vide order dated 22.3.1984, w.e.f. 15.11.1983. A perusal of the facts shows that although Jag Ram was initially working as a work charged Beldar, however, his services were regularized and therefore, he became a public servant. Once an employee has been regularized, he cannot be deprived of his pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules . In 1996(4) R.S.J. 247, it has been held by this Court that the pensionary benefits should be given to surviving members of an employee who dies in harness under the scheme. In 1996(2) R.S.J. 854, it has been held that even if the de-. ceased employee does not complete one year of continuous service his dependents nevertheless are entitled to the grant of family pension. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt Chameli v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1999 (2) R.S.J. 688, has held that even where an employee has not been regularized and had been working as a work charged employee still if he fulfilled conditions of regularization as per instructions, then in that case also the deceased work charged employee would be entitled to be regularized and his dependents would be entitled to receive the pensionary benefits. 7. In the present case as is clear from the facts, the services of husband of the appellant had been regularized on 22.3.1984, w.e.f. 15.11.1983, but he could not joined his duties because of ill health. 7. In the present case as is clear from the facts, the services of husband of the appellant had been regularized on 22.3.1984, w.e.f. 15.11.1983, but he could not joined his duties because of ill health. Once the services of an employee have been regularized and even if he has not been able to join his duties till his death, still his dependents could not be denied the benefits of gratuity and family pension. 8. In .view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Judgments of the Courts below are set aside. 9. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants is decreed with costs. 10. It is held that the plaintiff-appellant shall be entitled to receive the gratuity and family pension on account of death of her husband Jag Ram, who was a regular employee with the Public Health Department.