[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Shankutla Devi And Anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board And Ors on 16 January, 2026
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3189-2001(O&M)
RESERVED ON : 23.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.01.2026
UPLOADED ON : 16.01.2026
Shakuntla Devi and others ....Appellants
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Present: Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Amicus Curiae, for the
appellants/plaintiffs.
Mr. P.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents/defendants.
*****
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal filed by the
appellants/plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated
02.05.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala
(hereinafter to be referred as 'Lower Appellate Court'), whereby the
appeal filed by the respondents/defendants was partly accepted and the
judgment and decree dated 15.03.2000 passed by the learned Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial
Court'), was set aside to the extent of grant of family pension, gratuity
and compassionate appointment whereas, claim in regard to payment of
General Provident Fund and ex-gratia payment, the judgment and decree
passed by the learned trial Court were maintained and affirmed. The
appellants/plaintiffs have also challenged the judgment and decree dated
1 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -2-
15.03.2000 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the suit filed by the
appellants/plaintiffs was partly dismissed to the extent of arrears of salary
and bonus.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Ram Karan, husband of
appellant No.1 - Shakuntla Devi, was appointed on the post of Assistant
Lineman in erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be
referred as 'the Board') on 08.05.1970. Ram Karan was diagnosed with
the disease of T.B. and fell ill in the year 1980. As such, he was unable to
attend the duties because of his illness and submitted an application to the
Sub Divisional Officer (for short 'SDO') for grant of leave. However, the
abovesaid application was not accepted by the Board. Executive
Engineer (for short 'XEN'), Nabha Division, Nabha, vide letter informed
Ram Karan to resume his duties within a period of four days. However,
Ram Karan was unable to resume his duties due to prolonged illness. As
such, Ram Karan was removed from service vide order dated 02.07.1981.
It transpires that after Ram Karan had recovered from his illness, he made
a request to the XEN, Nabha Division, in the month of January, 1982, to
allow him to join the duty. On request made by Ram Karan, he was
employed on the post of A.L.M. on work-charged basis on 21.04.1982
and was posted at Nabha. Ram Karan again remained absent from duty
w.e.f. 21.01.1983. Unfortunately, Ram Karan expired on 14.09.1985
while in service. No retiral benefits were released to the legal
representatives of late Ram Karan after his death. As a consequence of
this, various representations were submitted by legal representatives of
late Ram Karan, however, no retiral benefits were released to the legal
2 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -3-
representatives/heirs of late Ram Karan. The appellants/plaintiffs being
the legal heirs of late Ram Karan filed a suit for declaration and
mandatory injunction claiming retiral benefits i.e. family pension,
gratuity, ex-gratia grant, G.P.F., compassionate appointment to one of the
family member and arrears of salary for the month of September, 1985,
along with bonus. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in the suit was that
late Ram Karan was removed from service due to illness which was
beyond his control. The absence in the case of late Ram Karan was not
willful and inquiry was also not held before passing of the order of
removal, as such, the order of removal was bad in law and the service
rendered by late Ram Karan on regular basis before his removal from
service be taken into consideration for the purpose of retiral benefits and
other benefits. It was also the case of appellants/plaintiffs that the
interruption period from October, 1980 to 20.04.1982 should also be
condoned.
3. The respondents/defendants duly filed written statement in
the abovesaid suit. It was the case of the respondents/defendants that the
suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was barred by limitation. It was also
the case of the respondents/defendants that late Ram Karan remained
absent from duty w.e.f. 01.10.1980 and did not join the duty in spite of
the fact that various notices were issued in various newspapers. As a
consequence of his absence, late Ram Karan was removed from service
vide order dated 02.07.1981. It was also the case of
respondents/defendants that as late Ram Karan was employed afresh
purely on work-charged/temporary basis on the post of A.L.M. on
3 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -4-
21.04.1982 initially for a period of three months and late Ram Karan
again remained absent from duty w.e.f. 21.01.1983. As such, as per the
relevant rules, the appellants/plaintiffs being the legal heirs of late Ram
Karan were not entitled for grant of benefits as claimed in the suit. It was
also the case of the respondents/defendants that family pension can be
given in the case of regular employee only, in view of the relevant rules
and Family Pension Scheme of 1964. It was also the case of
respondents/defendants that gratuity is only admissible to the family of
the deceased if the deceased employee has completed more than one year
of service. In regard to grant of compassionate appointment was
concerned, it was the case of respondents/defendants that the claim of
compassionate appointment was already rejected by the
respondents/defendants-Board vide order dated 04.10.1999 (Ex.D1) and
as the said order of rejection was not challenged by the
appellants/plaintiffs, as such, the claim for grant of compassionate
appointment cannot be accepted.
4. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were
framed by the learned trial Court :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as
prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time-barred? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
suit? OPD.
4. Relief.
4 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -5-
5. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
15.03.2000, partly decreed the suit in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs.
As per the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2000 passed by the learned
trial Court, the appellants/plaintiffs were held to be entitled for grant of
family pension, ex-gratia gratuity and General Provident Fund. A perusal
of the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2000 passed by the learned trial
Court would show that the Court has held that late Ram Karan was
appointed as ALM on 08.05.1970 on regular basis and had worked for 10
years before he was removed from service on 02.07.1981 without holding
enquiry, thereafter, he was again appointed as ALM on temporary basis.
As late Ram Karan had put in more than 10 years of regular service and
03 years of temporary service, the legal heirs of late Ram Karan were
held entitled for grant of retiral benefits except arrears of salary, bonus
etc. In regard to grant of compassionate appointment is concerned, a
finding has been given by the learned trial Court that as widow of late
Ram Karan had submitted an application requesting for grant of
compassionate appointment to appellant/plaintiff No.2, as such,
respondents/defendants were directed to consider the case of
appellant/plaintiff No.2 for appointment on compassionate grounds, in
accordance with law.
6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2000
passed by the learned trial Court, the respondent/defendant-Board filed an
appeal against the abovesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial Court. The aforesaid appeal came up for consideration before the
learned Lower Appellate Court on 02.05.2001, the learned Lower
5 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -6-
Appellate Court partly accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and
decree dated 15.03.2000 passed by the learned trial Court to the extent of
grant of family pension, gratuity and claim of compassionate
appointment. However, in respect of payment of General Provident Fund
and ex-gratia payment, the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2000 passed
by the learned trial Court was maintained and affirmed. A perusal of the
judgment and decree dated 02.05.2001 passed by the learned Lower
Appellate Court would show that the learned Lower Appellate Court has
held that family pension is admissible only in the case of regular
employee. It was also held, while referring to relevant rules, that as late
Ram Karan was afforded a fresh appointment vide order dated 21.04.1982
on temporary basis and as he had not completed one year of continuous
service, therefore, as per the rules, the appellants/plaintiffs were not
entitled for grant of family pension. In regard to grant of gratuity is
concerned, learned Lower Appellate Court held that as per Rule 6.16-A of
the Punjab Civil Services Rules, no gratuity is payable to an employee
who was either dismissed or removed from service, as such, the service
rendered by late Ram Karan before removal from the service cannot be
taken into consideration for the purpose of gratuity. It was also held that
as late Ram Karan had not completed 05 years of service, as such, on this
ground also, late Ram Karan was not entitled for grant of gratuity. In
regard to grant of compassionate appointment, a finding was given by
learned Lower Appellate Court that as the claim of compassionate
appointment was rejected by the respondents/defendants-Board vide order
dated 04.10.1999 (Ex.D1) during the pendency of the suit, and as the
6 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -7-
appellants/plaintiffs had not challenged the abovesaid order, the
appellants/plaintiffs were not entitled for grant of compassionate
appointment as the same could not be entertained.
7. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2001
passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court and judgment and decree
dated 15.03.2000 passed by the learned trial Court, the
appellants/plaintiffs have filed the present Regular Second Appeal.
8. Appellants No.2 and 3 appeared in person before this Court
on 24.09.2025, they submit that the counsel who was engaged in this case
had expired and they were not in a position to engage a new counsel.
Taking into consideration the abovesaid facts, Mr. Adeshwar Singh
Pannu, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
9. The only contention raised by learned Amicus Curiae is that
although late Ram Karan was removed from service vide order dated
02.07.1981, however, as the order of removal was passed without holding
any enquiry and the absence was not willful, as such, services rendered by
late Ram Karan before his removal should be taken into consideration for
the purpose of grant of retiral benefits.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants submits that in regard to grant of retiral benefits
to the appellants/plaintiffs is concerned, it is the case of the
respondents/defendants-Board that family pension is only granted to a
regular employee and not to an employee who is appointed on temporary
basis. In regard to payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity, it is the
case of learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that in terms of
7 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -8-
Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II (for short 'the Rules'), as
applicable to respondents/defendants-Board, gratuity is payable to a
family in respect of a temporary employee, who dies while in service, if
the deceased employee has completed more than one year of service. He
submits that as late Ram Karan was removed from service, the period
before his removal cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of
gratuity. It is the case of the learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants that after being employed on
work-charged/temporary basis, late Ram Karan had not completed one
year of service, as such, family of late Ram Karan is not entitled for grant
of death-cum-retirement gratuity. In regard to grant of compassionate
appointment is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court rightly held that the
appellant/plaintiff No.2 was not entitled for grant of compassionate
appointment on the ground that the claim of appellant/plaintiff No.2 was
already rejected by the respondents/defendants vide order dated
04.10.1999 (Ex.D1) and as the said order was never challenged, no
direction can be given for grant of compassionate appointment to the
appellant/plaintiff No.2.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length;
perused the paper-book and have gone through the record placed before
me.
12. A perusal of present appeal would show that the
appellants/plaintiffs have also challenged the judgment and decree dated
15.03.2000 passed by the learned trial Court. In this regard, it is held that
8 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -9-
the appellants/plaintiffs cannot challenge the abovesaid judgment and
decree dated 15.03.2000 passed by the learned trial Court for the reason
that the appellants/plaintiffs did not challenge the same before the learned
Lower Appellate Court.
13. The issue involved in the present case is "whether the
appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for grant of family pension, gratuity and
compassionate appointment?".
14. Before adjudicating upon the abovesaid issue, it is relevant to
consider the Rules which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of
the present case. The relevant rules of the Punjab Civil Services Rules
Volume II as applicable to the respondents/defendants-Board are
extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"Section III
Misconduct, Insolvency, or Inefficiency.
2.5. No pension may be granted to a Government employee
dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or
inefficiency; but to Government employees so dismissed or
removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when
they are deserving of special consideration: provided that the
allowance granted to any Government employee shall not
exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been
admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate.
xx xx xx xx
C.- DEATH/RETIREMENT/TERMINAL BENEFITS
FOR TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
9 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -10-
6.16-C. (a) The following benefits are permissible in respect
of temporary Government employees:
(1) Terminal Gratuity.- A temporary Government
employee who is discharged on account of retrenchment or is
declared invalid for further service, will be eligible for a
gratuity at the rate of 1/3rd of a month's pay for each
completed year of service provided he has completed not less
than 5 years' continuous service at the time of
retirement/discharge/invalidment.
(2) Death-Gratuity.- The family of a temporary
Government employee who dies while in service will be
eligible for death gratuity on the scale subject to the
conditions specified below:-
(a) On death after completion of one year's service
but before completion of three years' service, a gratuity
equal to one month's pay;
(b) On death after completion of three years'
service but before completion of five years, a gratuity
equal to two months' pay;
(c) On death after completion of five years' service
or more, a gratuity equal to three months' pay or the
amount of the terminal gratuity mentioned in clause if it
is greater."
xx xx xx xx
10 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -11-
(3) General.--The grant of gratuity under this rule will be
subject to the service rendered by the Government employee
concerned being held by the authority competent to appoint
him to be approved and satisfactory. No gratuity shall be
admissible:-
(a) In a case where the employee concerned resigns his
post or is removed or dismissed from public service;
(b) to a probationer or other Government employee
discharged for failure to pass the prescribed test or
examination;
(c) to a re-employed pensioner.
xx xx xx xx
FAMILY PENSION SCHEME
6.17. The provisions of this rule shall apply:
(a) to a regular employee of Punjab Government in a
pensionable establishment on or after the 1st July, 1964 ; and
(b) to a Punjab Government employee who was in service on
the 30th June, 1964 and came to be governed by the
provisions of Family Pension Scheme, 1964, for Punjab
Government employees.
(1) to (8) xx xx xx
(9) This scheme is not applicable to-
(a) Staff paid from contingencies;
(b) Work-charged staff;
(c) Casual labour;
11 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -12-
(d) Contract employees; and
(e) Employees without a minimum service of one year."
15. A perusal of Rule 2.5 of the Rules reproduced above would
show that no pension may be granted to a Government employee who is
dismissed or removed from service. In regard to grant of family pension
is concerned, Rule 6.17 of the Rules deals with Family Pension Scheme.
A perusal of the Rule 6.17 as reproduced above would show that the
family pension scheme is only applicable in the case of a regular
employee of the Government of Punjab and is not applicable in the case
of work-charged staff, casual labour, contract employee etc. In regard to
grant of death gratuity as per relevant rules is concerned, death gratuity is
admissible to the family of the temporary Government employee, who
dies while in service. However, the death gratuity can be granted to the
family of temporary employee on death only after completion of one year
of continuous service. A perusal of the facts of the case would show that
late Ram Karan was appointed on the post of Assistant Lineman in the
respondent-Board on 08.05.1970. He was removed from service vide
order dated 02.07.1981. Late Ram Karan did not challenge the order
dated 02.07.1981 and the said order has attained finality. Late Ram Karan
was appointed afresh on work-charged/temporary basis on 21.04.1982,
however, he remained absent again from duty w.e.f. 21.01.1983 and
unfortunately expired on 14.09.1985, while in service. A perusal of the
abovementioned facts would show that late Ram Karan did not work for
continuous one year on work-charged/temporary basis. In respect of claim
12 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -13-
of compassionate appointment is concerned, a perusal of the facts of the
case would show that the claim for grant of compassionate appointment to
appellant/plaintiff No.2 was rejected by the respondents/defendants vide
order dated 04.10.1999 (Ex.D1) during the pendency of the suit. The
appellants/plaintiffs did not challenge the abovesaid order and the said
order has attained finality. It is well settled law that the Courts cannot
pass an order contrary to the order passed by the authorities until and
unless the same is challenged before the Court and the same is struck
down by the Court. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that late
Ram Karan did not challenge the order dated 04.10.1999 (Ex.D1) vide
which the claim for grant of compassionate appointment to the
appellant/plaintiff No.2 was rejected. A perusal of the facts of the present
case would also show that late Ram Karan expired on 14.09.1985 and the
suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in the year 1996 i.e. almost after
11 years. It is well settled law that the compassionate appointment is not a
mode of appointment. The object behind giving compassionate
appointment is to remove immediate hardship to the family, whose bread
earner has expired.
16. In regard to the contention raised by learned Amicus Curiae
that as late Ram Karan was appointed on regular basis and his removal
was bad in law as no enquiry was held and, as such, the period rendered
by late Ram Karan on regular basis before his removal is to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of retiral benefits is concerned, a perusal of
the facts of the present case would show that the order of removal passed
in the case of late Ram Karan has attained finality as the abovesaid order
13 of 14
RSA-3189-2001(O&M) -14-
was never challenged. A perusal of the relevant Rules would show that in
the case where an employee is removed from service, he is not entitled for
grant of family pension or gratuity. Taking into consideration the facts of
the case and the relevant Rules, the service rendered by late Ram Karan
on regular basis before his removal cannot be taken into consideration for
the purpose of grant of family pension or gratuity and thus, the contention
raised by learned counsel that the service rendered by late Ram Karan on
regular basis, before his removal, is to be taken into consideration for the
purpose of retiral benefits cannot be accepted.
17. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, relevant rules
and evidence led by the parties, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality
in the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2001 passed by the learned Lower
Appellate Court.
18. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is
dismissed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
16.01.2026 (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
d.gulati JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
14 of 14
