Date Khushboo Kh boo Khanna alias Gudia and another SUS v. Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others ioners
Case Details
CWP-6581- -2023 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 245 CWP-6581-2023 CWP , 2025 Date of Decision: October 28, 2025 Date Khushboo Kh boo Khanna alias Gudia and another SUS VERSUS Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others ioners ....Petitioners ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, A arma, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Prashant Manchanda and M respondents No.1 to 3 with Sh. K office of PSPCL. and Mr. Angad Singh, Advocates for s for rom h Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, Officer from HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been fil of the een filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution tution of India praying for issuance of in the ce of a writ, order or directions in the nature of cer certiorari for quashing the order da 1) rder dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by res by respondent No.3 whereby the peti y held e petitioners have been wrongly held not entitled to itled to the grant of family pension on father on account of death of their father late Sh.Ram h.Ramesh Kumar Khanna without n the thout taking into consideration the relevant facto t factors. Further for issuance of a w mus of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing resp g respondents No.1 to 3 to grant fami ers on nt family pension to the petitioners on account of de t of death of their father and release th nsion ease the proportionate family pension in view of R of Rule 6.17 of Punjab Civil Service I and Services Rules, Volume-II, Part-I and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- -2023 2 judgments of nts of Hon’ble Supreme Court in e of rt in Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar 2000 000 AIR (SC) 735 and Vidyadhar Bai hari and others Vs. Sukhrana Bai and others 20 rs 2008(2) SCC 238. Lastly, prays f ts not rays for directing the respondents not to release the se the family pension in favour of resp of respondent No.4. 2.
Legal Reasoning
2021, d by this Court in CWP-15267-2021, Khushboo K oo Khanna and another Vs. Punjab Ltd njab State Power Corporation Ltd and others rs (Annexure P-18). 4. Per contra learned counsel for r bmits el for respondent-Corporation submits that the dece e deceased has never expressed an in are in an intention to provide any share in the pensiona nsionary benefits to the petitioners rically ioners, rather, he has categorically mentioned th ned the name of his first wife as hi letter as his nominee. Further, vide letter dated 23.09.2 3.09.2013, the deceased communicate ioners unicated that the mother of petitioners PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- -2023 4 is not his wif his wife and that respondent No.4 and ntitled .4 and her children would be entitled to his pensio pensionary benefits. The claim of resp ported of respondent No.4 is also supported by the Succ Succession Certificate issued unde Indian under Section 372 of the Indian Succession A sion Act, 1925 by the learned Sub D ever, Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, the order da er dated 06.10.2016(Annexure P-13 under 13), granting maintenance under Section 12 of 12 of the DV Act, does not in any m of the any manner prove the validity of the marriage betw ge between the deceased and the mothe mother of petitioners. 5. Having heard the submissions m or the sions made by learned counsel for the parties and a and after perusing the record with th spires ith their able assistance, it transpires that the dece e deceased employee has mentioned t o.4 as oned the name of respondent No.4 as nominee in ee in the service record. Thereaf dated hereafter, he wrote a letter dated 23.09.2013, 013, categorically stating that the m ot his the mother of petitioners is not his wife. 6. Be that as it may, this Court can ion urt cannot decide a disputed question of facts, wh ts, while exercising its powers unde of the under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution tution of India. A two-Judge Bench Court Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Ag Agro Industries Corporation Ltd 005 Ltd. Vs. Bharati Industries 2005 (12) 725 wh while speaking through Justice A hat as tice Arijit Pasayat, observed that as follows: “9. A bare persual of the Hig that High Court's judgment shows that there w ere was clear non-application of min ourt f mind. On one hand the High Court observ served that the disputed questions writ tions cannot be gone into a writ petitio tition. It was also noticed that ess h of t essence of dispute was breach of contra ntract. After coming to the above ourt bove conclusions the High Court should ould have dismissed the writ petitio ourt tition. Surprisingly, the High Court PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- -2023 5 procee oceeded to examine the case solely o
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitione father etitioner inter alia contends that father of petitioners tioners served the Punjab State Power C etired ower Corporation Limited and retired on 30.06.201 06.2013 as Assistant Executive Engin away Engineer and ultimately passed away on 13.05.202 .05.2021. The marriage between th s was een the parents of petitioners was solemnized i ized in October, 2005 upon which t d and hich they cohabited as husband and wife. From t rom this wedlock, two children i.e. . The n i.e. the petitioners were born. The petitioners be ers being the minor children and the irs of nd therefore, dependent legal heirs of the deceased eased employee are entitled to family 6.17, family pension in terms of Rule 6.17, Volume-II, P II, Part-I, Punjab Civil Services Rul ioners es Rules. The claim of the petitioners is duly suppo supported by their various ID proofs i ter ID roofs including Aadhar card, Voter ID card, Birth C irth Certificate, Ration card (Annexure name nexures P-2 to P-8) wherein the name of the deceas eceased employee is mentioned as the as their father. 4. Vide impugned order dated 1), dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-1), respondent- -Corporation rejected the claim o on the laim of the petitioners merely on the ground that r that respondent No.4, alleged first wi ble to irst wife of the deceased, was able to produce Su e Succession Certificate dated 0 ted 06.10.2021 SDM, issued by SDM, Ludhiana(Eas na(East). The respondent-Corporati rporation has failed to take into into consideration eration that submitting the Succession ory to ession Certificate is not mandatory to prove eligibi eligibility for family pension. Furt ioners Further, the parents of petitioners purchased a sed a joint property measuring 109 s Road, 109 sq. yards on Chandigarh Road, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- -2023 3 Ludhiana wh na where both of them lived toget . The together with the petitioners. The deceased also ed also deposited an amount of Rs.5 tioner f Rs.5 lakhs the name of petitioner No.1, in her n her HDFC Bank account, where he as the ere her mother is nominee. It was the petitioners a ers and their mother who looked er his ooked after the deceased after his retirement til ent till his death, and not respondent her of ndent No.4. Moreover, the mother of petitioners fil ers filed an application under Section omen ection 12 of the Protection of Women from Domes omestic Violence Act, 2005 (herei st the (hereinafter ‘DV Act’) against the deceased pur ed pursuant to which vide order date 13), er dated 06.10.2016(Annexure P-13), learned JMIC JMIC, Ludhiana awarded a sum of R nce to of Rs.6000/- p.m. as maintenance to her and Rs.3 d Rs.3000/- p.m. to each petitioners, . The oners, being his minor children. The petitioners ar ers are also entitled to the admissible ion 16 issible benefits in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Hindu Marriage Act and under Secti ession r Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 956. As such, the petitioners, after d, are after the death of the deceased, are entitled to ge to get proportionate pension as per t e. The s per the family pension scheme. The case of the pe the petitioner is also squarely covered red by overed by the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court in Rameshwari hari ari Devi (supra) and Vidyadhari (supra) and a and also the judgment rendered by t
Decision
tion ely on the writ petitioner's assertion and o d on a very curious reasoning lant- ning that though the appellant Corpo rporation claimed that the value of pees e of articles lifted was nearly rupees 14.90 .90 lakhs no details were specific ter- cifically given. From the counter affidav fidavit filed before the High Court ant urt it is crystal clear that relevant details tails disputing claim of the writ p e of rit petitioner were given. Value of article ticles lifted by the writ petitioner tion. ner is a disputed factual question. Where here a complicated question of fa atter f fact is involved and the matter require quires thorough proof on factual asp not l aspects, the High Court should not enterta tertain the writ petition. Whether ould her or not the High Court should exercis ercise jurisdiction under Article ould cle 226 of the Constitution would largely rgely depend upon the nature of disp t be dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolve solved without going into the factu ourt actual controversy, the High Court should ould not entertain the writ petition. ition on. As noted above, the writ petition was pr s primarily founded on allegation o tion ion of breach of contract. Question whethe ether the action of the opposite par nted party in the writ petition amounted to brea breach of contractual obligation u and on ultimately depends on facts and would uld require material evidence to be case to be scrutinised and in such a case writ ju it jurisdiction should not be exercis Jain ercised. (See : State of Bihar v. Jain Plastic astic & Chemicals Ltd., 2002(1) SCC SCC 216). 10. In a catena of cases th here s this Court has held that where dispute spute revolves round questions of t be of fact, the matter ought not be enterta tertained under Article 226 of the an, the Constitution. (See : Chairman, Grid C rid Corporation of Orissa LTd. (GR ani . (GRIDCO) and Ors. v. Sukamani Das (S as (Smt.) and Anr., 1999(4) RCR (C SCC R (Civil) 174 (SC) : (1999(7) SCC 298). 8).” 7. Further, a two-Judge bench of Court of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman man, Grid Corporation of Orissa Lt ani sa Ltd. (Gridco) Vs. Smt. Sukamani PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- -2023 6 Das 1999 (7) 9 (7) SCC 298, while speaking throu made g through Justice G.T Nanavati made the following lowing observations: “6. In our opinion, the High r in High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions t fit ons even though they were not fit cases for exercising powe ower under Article 226 of the the Constitution. The High Court w the rt went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths h s had of taken place because of electrocution as a result of the tact f the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the e f the the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedl ttedly/prima facie amounted to to negligence on the part of the app iled e appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these ca and se cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to the to be established firstly by the claimants. Mere fact that the w sion he wire of the electric transmission line belonging to the appellan the ellant No. 1 had snapped and the deceased had come into contact tact with it and had died was not b t by itself sufficient for awarding co d to g compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire h any ire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and s the and under which circumstances the deceased had come into contac f the ntact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the a ases the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity t and ity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in mai lines maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapp nces napped because of circumstances beyond their control or unau hird unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had ated had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questio ided estions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affida egal ffidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed qu ed a d questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of th oper of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has no that s not and could not have held that PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- -2023 7 the disputes in these cases wer sing were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no sub ourt substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ p ivil rit petitioners to approach the Civil Court as it was done in OJC No No. 5229 of 1995. 7. Reliance placed b the d by the learned Counsel for the respondents on the decision of ri v. n of this Court in Sanchalakshri v. Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad M SCT ad Mehta and another, 1999(1) SCT 88 (SC) : JT 1998(8) SC 55.” 8. In view of the discussion abov ion is n above, the present writ petition is dismissed. Ho However, the petitioners would be ernate uld be at liberty to avail any alternate remedy avail available to them, strictly in accorda ressal ccordance with law, for the redressal of the grievan etition. rievances raised in the present petition 9. Pending miscellaneous applicat stand pplication(s), if any, shall also stand ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE October 28, P.C er 28, 2025 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document