IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 CWP-3792-2001 Date of Decision: March 09, 2026 Neelam Minocha deceased through LRs .....Petitioners VERSUS Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Pradeep Sharma with Ms. Priyanka Dhillon, Ms. Mehak Kanwar & Ms. Anjana Masih, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG Haryana-State.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the letter dated 09.08.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner’s claim for family pension to be determined as per New Pay Scale applicable from 01.01.1996 treating the deceased petitioner’s husband as Executive Engineer in spite of his holding current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) at the time of his untimely demise on 20.03.1983 has been rejected in violations of provisions enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and further for directing the respondents to consider the claim for payment of family pension. Further for directing the respondents to release the pay and allowances attached with the post of Executive Engineer for the period the petitioner’s deceased husband held the charge to the post of Executive Engineer at par with regular Executive Engineer along with interest @ 15% per annum.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as Graduate Technical Assistant (Civil) on 24.01.1975 and joined his duties on 08.02.1975. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner was given the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer, as is discernible from Annexures P-1 to P-4 appended with the paper book of the present writ petition. Unfortunately, the husband of petitioner expired on 20.03.1983. It is further submitted that the respondents counted the initial appointment of the husband of petitioner as qualifying service towards pension in terms of Rule 3.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, as the petitioner’s husband had taken the charge of the post of A.E. Thereafter, on 30.05.2000, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for fixation of the family pension of her late husband as per the new pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, and also for treating her husband as XEN for all intents and purposes, as is evident from Annexure P-5. However, the late husband of petitioner was not treated as XEN for the purpose of calculating pension vide order dated 09.08.2000 (Annexure P-7). Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 01.09.2000 (Annexure P-8), contending that the impugned order dated 09.08.2000 (Annexure P-7) is not legally sustainable. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2000 (Annexure P-7) and for striking down the condition requiring 8 years of service as A.E. Class-II/AEE for promotion to the post of XEN, being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTION

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents–Nigam opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had approached this Court after an inordinate delay of more than 17 years. It is contended that such unexplained delay disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, for the first time, made a representation only on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P-5), whereas the husband of the petitioner had admittedly died in harness on 20.03.1983, and the present writ petition has been instituted in the year 2001. It is further contended that the late husband of p