Sukhwinder Kaur Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others
Case Details
2019 (O&M) RSA-3156-2019 (O&M) Sr. No.244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH RSA RSA-3156-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.03.2025 Date of Decision : Sukhwinder Kaur Sukhwinder Kaur …Appellant … Versus State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others …Respondents …Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate for Mr. C.L.Sharma, Advocate, Mr. C.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. for the appellant. Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) LAPITA BANERJI Under challenge in the present regular second appeal is a Under challenge in the present regular second appeal is a Under challenge in the present regular second appeal is a judgment and order dated April 1, 2019 passed by the Additional District judgment and order dated April 1, 2019 passed by the Additional District judgment and order dated April 1, 2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. The learned Additional District Judge, reversed the Judge, Bathinda. The learned Additional District Judge, reversed the Judge, Bathinda. The learned Additional District Judge, reversed the judgment and order dated October 30, 2014 passed by the Civil Judge judgment and order dated October 30, 2014 pass judgment and order dated October 30, 2014 pass
Legal Reasoning
(Sr.Division) Bathinda by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. (Sr.Division) Bathinda by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. (Sr.Division) Bathinda by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. i) ii) The brief facts of the appeal are stated hereinunder:- The brief facts of the appeal are stated hereinunder: The brief facts of the appeal are stated hereinunder: appellant is the widow of the deceased employee, one The plaintiff-appellant is the widow of the deceased employee, one The plaintiff died on April 1, 2006. Darshan Singh who died on April 1, 2006. Darshan The deceased employee worked as a e deceased employee worked as a ‘Pump O ‘Pump Operator’ on muster roll basis since November 11, 1986. basis since November 11, 1986. iii) The deceased employee was regularized on April 11, 2004. deceased employee was regularized on April 11, 2004. Unfortunately, he passed away on 11.04.2006 Unfortunately, he passed away on 11.04.2006 while on duty. 3. of the plaintiff that under the State It was the contention of the plaintiff that under the State It was the contention Government’s Notification dated October 13, 2010 wherein an employee died- Government’s Notification dated October 13, 2010 wherein an employee die Government’s Notification dated October 13, 2010 wherein an employee die harness and such death is attributable to the reasons directly or substantially in-harness and such death is attributable to the reasons directly or substantially harness and such death is attributable to the reasons directly or substantially connected with with performance of his official duties and relata performance of his official duties and relatable to such VANDANA 2025.03.28 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 6 2019 (O&M) RSA-3156-2019 (O&M) performance, an , an ex gratia payment equal to 24 times of the revised ex gratia payment equal to 24 times of the revised basic pay could be granted to the dependents of the deceased could be granted to the dependents of the deceased employee with minimum payable amount of Rs.2 lakh and maximum amount payable amount of Rs.2 lakh and maximum amount of Rs.4 lakh. 4. tia payment along with interest The plaintiff claimed ex gratia payment along with interest The plaintiff calculated @ 18% per annum @ 18% per annum but the said prayer was rejected. but the said prayer was rejected. The plaintiff’s rejected by the State of Punjab. Hence, the claim for family pension was also rejected by the State of Punjab. Hence, the claim for family pension was also plaintiff had no recourse but to file Civil Suit No.141 of 2012, for plaintiff had no recourse uit No.141 of 2012, for recovery of gratia amount and release of pensionary benefits. ex-gratia amount and release of pensionary benefits. gratia amount and release of pensionary benefits. 5. The defendents No.1 and 2-State The defendents No.1 and 2 State appeared and filed written and contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary and contended that the suit was bad for non statements and contended that the suit was bad for non
Legal Reasoning
parties and as such was liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, it was contended parties and as such was liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, it was contended parties and as such was liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, it was contended that the suit was hopelessly barred by the laws of limitation. Therefore, the that the suit was hopelessly barred by the laws of that the suit was hopelessly barred by the laws of respondent-defendant defendant No.4 correctly rejected the claim y rejected the claim of family pension of the plaintiff. The defendant No.4 filed a separate written statement and e plaintiff. The defendant No.4–filed a separate written statement and contended that the service of deceased employee was regularized on April 11, contended that the service of deceased employee was regularized on April 11, contended that the service of deceased employee was regularized on April 11, 2004 and as per the Notification dated March 2, 2004 the employees who were 2004 and as per the Notification dated March 2, 2004 the employe 2004 and as per the Notification dated March 2, 2004 the employe appointed on or after January 1, 2004 were to be governed by the appointed on or after January 1, 2 004 were to be governed by the “Newly Defined Policy of Contributory Pension Scheme Defined Policy of Contributory Pension S cheme”. Therefore, the plaintiff being dependent of the deceased employee who had been regularized after being dependent of the deceased employee who had been regularized after being dependent of the deceased employee who had been regularized after January 1, 2004 was not entitled to “family pension January 1, 2004 was not entitled to family pension”. 6. Learned trial Court had held that DW-1 appearing on behalf of Learned trial Court had held that DW Learned trial Court had held that DW the employer- examination that the deceased -State admitted in her cross-examination that the deceased employee had his regularization. Therefore, the had continued in service until his regularization. Therefore, the period of past service was to be counted for grant of pensionary benefits. period of past service was to be counted for grant of pensionary benefits. period of past service was to be counted for grant of pensionary benefits. family pension was granted to the plaintiff along with interest family pension was granted to the plaintiff along with inte Accordingly, family pension was granted to the plaintiff along with inte @8% per annum on arrears. The trial Court also held that the grant of @8% per annum on arrears. The trial Court also held that @8% per annum on arrears. The trial Court also held that pensionary benefits constituted a recurring cause of action. T pensionary benefits ng cause of action. Therefore, the VANDANA 2025.03.28 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 6 2019 (O&M) RSA-3156-2019 (O&M) plaintiff’s suit was held to be not time barred, despite being filed in 2012, plaintiff’s suit was despite being filed in 2012, even though her husband had her husband had passed away in 2006. 7. Consequently, the trial Court vide judgment and order dated Consequently, the trial Court vide judgment and order dated Consequently, the trial Court vide judgment and order dated October 30, 2014 granted pensionary benefits and ex gratia payment to the October 30, 2014 granted pensionary benefits October 30, 2014 granted pensionary benefits plaintiff along with interest @ 8% per annum on the principal amount. plaintiff along with interest @ 8% per annum on the principal amount. plaintiff along with interest @ 8% per annum on the principal amount. 8. The said decree was challenged by the State The said decree was challenged by the State-employer. Vide the judgment and decree passed by the impugned order dated April 1, 2019, the judgment and decree passed by the impugned order dated April 1, 2019 The First Appellate Court relied on the decision of trial Court was set aside. The First Appellate Court relied on the decision of trial Court was set aside. the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3595-3612 of 1999 the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 1999 decided on 10.04.2006 passed in “State of Karnataka State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi Vs. Uma Devi and others.” Learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned judgment Additional District Judge vide the impugned judgment held that after regularization, the plaintiff’s husband became a member of the plaintiff’s husband became a member of the “Newly and his dependents were neither Defined Contributory Pension Scheme” and his dependents were neither Defined Contributory Pension S gratia payment as he was regularized after April 1, entitled to pension or ex-gratia payment as he was regularized after April 1, entitled to pension or ex 2004. Furthermore, the plaintiff had been given an appointment on 2004. Furthermore, the plaintiff had been given 2004. Furthermore, the plaintiff had been given compassionate ground. The issue of limitation was urged before the First compassionate ground. The issue of limitation was urged before the First compassionate ground. The issue of limitation was urged before the First Appellate Court. First Appellate Court relied on the Notification No.8/1/2004- Appellate Court. First Appellate Court relied on the Notification No.8/1/2004 Appellate Court. First Appellate Court relied on the Notification No.8/1/2004 2078 dated 02.03.2004 and clarified that the employees who were 3FP-11-2078 dated 02.03.2004 and clarified that the employees who were 2078 dated 02.03.2004 and clarified that the employees who were appointed on or after January 1, 2004 would be governed by the appointed on or aft er January 1, 2004 would be governed by the “Contributory Even though, the period spent by the deceased employee Pension Scheme”. Even though, the period spent by the deceased employee Pension Scheme employee has been directed to be counted for the working as a daily wage employee has been directed to be counted for the working as a daily purpose of pensionary benefits by various Apex Court’s judgments, it was held purpose of pensionary benefits by various Apex Court’ purpose of pensionary benefits by various Apex Court’ that since deceased employee was regularized on April 11, 2004 he was not that since deceased employee was regularized on April 11, 2004 he was not that since deceased employee was regularized on April 11, 2004 he was not eligible for pension and his dependents were not eligible for ex-gratia eligible for pension and his dependents were not eligible for pension and his dependents were not payment/family pension due to the coming into effect of “ payment/family pension due to the coming into effect of “Contributory Pension Scheme”. Pension Scheme” VANDANA 2025.03.28 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 6 2019 (O&M) RSA-3156-2019 (O&M) 9. The learned Additional District Judge relied on Article 309 of the The learned Additional District Judge The learned Additional District Judge Constitution of India to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s husband Constitution of India to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s husband Constitution of India to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s husband could not claim regularization from the date of his engagement as a daily could not claim regularization from the date of his engagement as a daily could not claim regularization from the date of his engagement as a daily wager since he was not appointed to a regular post at the time of his initial wager since he was not appointed to a regular post at the time of his initial wager since he was not appointed to a regular post at the time of his initial engagement. Therefo he came to the conclusion that the past service of daily Therefore, he came to the conclusion that the past service of daily or grant of pensionary benefits and the wager could not be counted for grant of pensionary benefits and the wager could not be counted f contributory pension ension scheme come into effect. 10. Learned Additional District Judge held that the trial Court Learned Additional District Judge held that Learned Additional District Judge held that e error by holding that the suit was not barred by limitation committed a grave error by holding that the suit was not barred by limitation committed a grav failed to discharge their onus on the point of limitation. He and the defendants failed to discharge their onus on the point of limitation. He and the defendants held that there was no continuous cause of action as the plaintiff was not held that there was no continuous cause of action as the plaintiff was not held that there was no continuous cause of action as the plaintiff was not entitled to family pension. Therefore, it was held that the plaintiff had no entitled to family pension. , it was held that the plaintiff had no locus to file the suit and the suit was dismissed and the impugned judgment standi to file the suit and the suit was dismissed and the impugned judgment to file the suit and the suit was dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Court, was set aside. and decree passed by the lower Court, was set aside. and decree passed by the lower Court, was set aside. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant the impugned order suffers from error of law on the face of submits that the impugned order suffers from error of law on the face of the impugned order suffers from error of law on the face of record. The plaintiff’s husband was not a new entrant. He was working as a record. The plaintiff’s husband was not a new entrant. He was working as a record. The plaintiff’s husband was not a new entrant. He was working as a such period was to be counted for work charged employee and, therefore, such period was to be counted for work charged employee and grant of pensionary benefits. grant of pensionary benefits. 12. counsel submits that there was no error in passing Learned State counsel submits that there was no error in passing Learned State the impugned judgment. In any event, interest could not have been granted to the impugned judgment. In any event, interest could not have been granted to the impugned judgment. In any event, interest could not have been granted to appellant for more than 38 months’ prior to the date of filing of the plaintiff-appellant for more than 38 months’ prior to the date of filing of appellant for more than 38 months’ prior to the date of filing of the suit on July 28, July 28, 2012 as admittedly the hus 2012 as admittedly the husband of the appellant-plaintiff died on April 11, 2006 and the plaintiff approached the Court belatedly. died on April 11, 2006 and the plaintiff approached the Court belatedly. died on April 11, 2006 and the plaintiff approached the Court belatedly. 13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the plaintiff’s husband worked as perused the material on record. Admittedly, the plaintiff’s husband worked as perused the material on record. Admittedly, the plaintiff’s husband worked as charged employee since November 11, 1986. The Apex Court in charged employee since November 11, 1986 a work charged employee since November 11, 1986 VANDANA 2025.03.28 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 6 2019 (O&M) RSA-3156-2019 (O&M) judgments had held that period spent as a work charged, casual, daily judgments had held that period spent as a work charged, casual several judgments had held that period spent as a work charged, casual wage would be counted towards the pensionary benefits. wage would be counted towards the pensionary benefits. wage would be counted towards the pensionary benefits. 14. A beneficial reference may be made to a judgment of Divisi A benefic ial reference may be made to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP 2371 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010 in this Court passed in CWP-2371 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010 in . The said judgment has also been Harbans Lal Vs. State of Punjab and others. The said judgment has also been Harbans Lal Vs. State of Punjab and others upheld in the Apex Court. It is clear that the period spent by a work charged, upheld in the Apex Court. It is clear that the period spent by a work charged, upheld in the Apex Court. It is clear that the period spent by a work charged, ner would be counted towards the pensionary casual or a daily wage earner would be counted towards the pensionary casual or a daily wage ear benefits. The Apex Court has also held that non-granting of pensionary benefits. The Apex Court has also held that benefits. The Apex Court has also held that a recurring cause of action. A beneficial reference may be made to a a recurring cause of action. A beneficial refe benefits is a recurring cause of action. A beneficial refe judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5151-5152 of 2008 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5151 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5151 Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh” reported in (2008) 8 SCC Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh” in “Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh” 648. Relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter - Relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter:-
Decision
“5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches claim will be rejected on the ground of delay remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the relating to a continuing wrong. Where a said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, service related claim is based on a relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an creates a continuing source of injury. exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of xception. If the grievance is in respect of administrative decision which related to or any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue the claim will not be entertained. relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting ot to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will wrongs will apply. As a consequence, restrict to arrears to arrears restrict normally to a period of three years prior to the date of normally to a period of three filing of the writ petition.” the consequential relief relating the consequential relief relating VANDANA 2025.03.28 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 6 2019 (O&M) RSA-3156-2019 (O&M) 15. In view of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the In view of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the In view of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit considered opinion that the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit considered opinion that the First of the plaintiff-appellant. Accordingly, the impugned of the plaintiff- appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated October is set aside relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Tarsem is set aside relying on the decision of th 30, 2014 is set aside relying on the decision of th Singh (supra). . The interest granted by the trial Court @ 8% The interest granted by the trial Court @ 8% per annum on the arrears of family pension is restricted to 38 months prior to the date of filing of arrears of family pension is restricted to 38 months prior to the date of filing of arrears of family pension is restricted to 38 months prior to the date of filing of State is directed to disburse the the suit on July 28, 2012. The employer-State is directed to disburse the the suit on July 28, 2012. amount of arrears within four months from the date of this order. amount of arrears within four months from the date of this order. amount of arrears within four months from the date of this order. 16. With the directions aforesaid, Regular Second Appeal 3156 With the d irections aforesaid, Regular Second Appeal 3156-2019 is disposed of. 17. Pending applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE March 17, 202 vandana 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether speaking/reasoned : reportable : Whether reportable : Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.03.28 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 6