पंजाब‑हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने अनियमित कार्य‑चार्ज कर्मचारियों के परिवार को पेंशन नहीं देने का सिद्धांत स्थापित किया

No regularisation, no family pension: Punjab and Haryana High Court lays down the rule

Calls earlier Single Bench and recent Division Bench rulings per incuriam

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the family of a work-charge employee whose services were never regularised is not entitled to family pension.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma also termed as “per incuriam” or by inadvertence both a 2014 Single Bench ruling and a recent Division Bench judgment for failing to consider binding law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court’s Full Bench.

Justice Sharma dismissed a widow’s petition seeking family pension, but directed the State not to recover the amount already paid to her pursuant to an earlier High Court order.

In its 112-page judgment, the Court answered the central question against the petitioner — whether she could claim family pension when her husband had never been regularised.

“Since the husband of the petitioner was never regularised and was not entitled for pension, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted family pension,” Justice Sharma held, adding that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on merits.

Justice Sharma relied on Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, providing that the Family Pension Scheme applied to a “regular employee of Punjab Government in a pensionable establishment”.

Justice Sharma observed that the petitioner’s husband had joined the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project as a Beldar on work-charge basis on September 11, 1984, and died on July 29, 1993, after eight years and 10 months of service.

Although the State issued instructions on May 7, 1993, regarding regularisation of certain work-charge employees, the specific policy for Ranjit Sagar Dam Project employees was issued only on March 13, 1996.

The Court noted that the employee died before the 1996 policy came into force and, therefore, “neither could he opt for the policy nor the same could be made applicable in the case of the husband of the petitioner.”

Justice Sharma rejected the petitioner’s reliance in the precedent case of case “Balwinder Kaur”, pointing out that the employees in that case were already covered by a 2001 regularisation policy, had completed the requisite service, and their cases had been recommended for regularisation before the process was kept in abeyance.

“In these special circumstances, the Court granted notional/retrospective regularisation for the limited purpose of granting family pension,” the Bench observed, while noting that the present case was different because the employee had died before the relevant 1996 policy came into force.

“Therefore, no right or eligibility to regularisation had arisen in his favour during his lifetime,” the Court held.

Justice Sharma then examined the precedential conflict. It held that the 2014 Single Bench judgment in Balwinder Kaur was per incuriam because it referred to Supreme Court judgments in Surji Devi and Shakuntala Devi case, but it did not consider their ratio concerning family pension for widows of unregularised employees.

The Bench consequently held: “The judgment of the Single Judge in ‘Balwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on December 16, 2014, is per incuriam.”

Justice Sharma added the Division Bench judgment dated August 24, while deciding the appeal, was also per incuriam, since the settled law on the grant of family pension was totally ignored

Justice Sharma relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in “UHBVNL v. Surji Devi”, which held that a widow was not entitled to family pension where her husband had remained an unregularised work-charge employee.

The Supreme Court had said: “A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the statutory interdicts,” and, despite the employee having worked for 11 years, “sentiments and sympathy alone cannot be a ground for taking a view different from what is permissible in law.”

Although the family-pension claim was rejected, Justice Sharma protected the petitioner from recovery of amounts already paid. She had been appointed on compassionate grounds after her husband’s death, her services were regularised in 1996 and she retired on May 31, 2024.

“Since the petitioner was already granted family pension because of order dated 04.07.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, the respondents are directed not to recover any amount already paid to the petitioner as family pension,” Justice Sharma ruled.

The Court separately rejected the petitioner’s argument that pension constituted a recurring cause of action. It held that the claim concerned entitlement to family pension itself and dismissed the petition on delay and laches as well.

“Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed on merits as well as on delay and latches,” Justice Sharma concluded.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News