Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Bachan Kaur - Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others - Respondents
CWP-4461-2020
Decided on : 11-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate and Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate
Employees with disabilities cannot be denied pension benefits due to inefficiency; pension rights cannot be revoked arbitrarily by successors if previously granted legally.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The court holds that an employee who acquires a disability during service cannot be denied pensions or benefits due to inefficiency, as per Rules 2.5 and 5.12 of CSR and Section 47 of the Act. (Paras 1, 11, 17)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court affirms its right to intervene despite alternative remedies available when a statutory provision is misinterpreted, emphasizing adherence to legal norms over arbitrary reviews by successors-in-office. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the withdrawal of her family pension ordered by her husband's employer posthumously. Her husband, a 90% disabled employee, had received pension benefits that were revoked without legal basis or proper notice.
Findings of Court:
The withdrawal of pension was ruled illegal as it contradicted established CSR provisions and the disability act, thus the court ordered reinstatement of pension benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the withdrawal of pension was justified under the CSR rules and if a successor can revoke benefits granted by a predecessor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that once benefits are legally granted, they cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn without due process, reaffirming protections for employees with disabilities.
Result: Petition allowed; withdrawal order set aside and benefits to be granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to withdrawal of pension based on prior service record. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. invalid pension withdrawal violates established precedent. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of csr rules on pension and disability entitlements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal precedence prohibits arbitrary reviews by successors. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. writ jurisdiction invoked despite alternative remedies. (Para 16) |
| 6. writ petition allowed, directing restoration of pension benefits. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3, whereby, the Invalid Pension and Family Pension availed by her was withdrawn with effect from January, 2019.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that the husband of the petitioner joined service of respondent No.1 as a work-charge employee in November, 1969. He was regularised on 18.05.1979 and joined as an ALM on 19.05.1979. Unfortunately, he had a non fatal electric accident that resulted in amputation of his right upper limb and index finger of the left hand. The degree of his disability was assessed to be 90%. On account of this permanent disability, his employment was terminated with effect from 04.01.1983, without granting him any pension. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner passed away on 30.01.1988. The petitioner moved a representation claiming Invalid Pension of her late husband till 30.01.1998 and thereafter, the family pension, which was granted vide office order No.275 dated 02.09.2014 by respondent No.3. However, the same was withdrawn by the successor who occupied the post of respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure P-8).
CONTENTIONS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.3 erred in superseding the order passed by his predecessor. This Court in Amandeep Padda Vs. State of Punjab , 2014 (4) SCT 638 has categorically held that once a competent authority has granted a certain relief to an applicant, the same cannot be withdrawn by the officer who succeeds him. As such, respondent No.3 illegally reviewed the order passed by his predecessor. Further, the husband of the petitioner was regularised on 18.05.1979 and was discharging duties as an ALM at Bilaspur when he met with non-fatal electrical accident on 06.10.1980 and sustained serious electric burns. The husband of the petitioner was admitted in PGIMER, Chandigarh and in order to save his life, his right upper limb and index finger of left hand were amputated. As per the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board, Civil Hospital, Ambala, he was declared 90% disabled due to the said amputation.
4. He further submits that the husband of the petitioner resumed his duties on 23.12.1980 but his employment was terminated on 04.01.1983 on account of his permanent disability, without granting him any kind of pension. The petitioner moved a representation and was granted Invalid Pension of her late husband with effect from 05.01.1983 till his death i.e. 30.01.1988 and thereafter, the family pension vide order dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) by respondent No.3, the predecessor of the current Officer, after obtaining necessary advice from various authorities of the respondent-Corporation. The same was done in consonance with Rule 5.12 CIVIL SERVICES RULES Vol. II (in short ‘CSR’). The petitioner was regularly receiving family pension and had also received the arrears of pension of her deceased husband. However, respondent No.3 issued a letter on 16.02.2016 (Anenxure P-2), and sought legal opinion from the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana Power Utilities and raised queries regarding recovery of pension from the petitioner and withdrawl of the same in the future, as discernible from Annexure P-2. The Legal Remembrancer vide letter dated 08.03.2016 (
