IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 06.11.2025 UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS . .Appellant.

Versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench by which, the benefit of family pension has been extended in favour of respondent No. 2 by treating her late husband namely, Mohan Singh as a regular employee on the ground that he has rendered more than ten years of service with the petitioner-department.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the benefit of family pension granted to the respondent No. 2 has not been granted in accordance to the settled principle of law as, upto the date when husband of respondent No. 2 died i.e. 15.07.2008, though he had completed ten years of tenure in service upon the date of death but, upto the year 2006 he had not completed the said tenure and therefore, even as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 , by which judgment the benefit of regularisation is to be given to an employee who has rendered service for a long duration of a decade or more, which is not the scenario of present case, hence, the benefit of regularization could not have been extended in favour of the late husband of respondent No. 2 so as to claim the family pension.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

4. Certain facts needs to be noted for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

5. The husband of respondent No. 2 was appointed as Beldar by the Chandigarh Administration on daily wage basis on 01.01.1991 and his services were terminated in October, 1993. After the termination of husband of respondent No. 2 from services, the said termination was challenged by him before the labour Court by raising reference no. 264/1994 Chandigarh and vide order dated 25.01.1999 (Annexure A-3) passed by the labour Court amicable settlement was reached upon between the parties and the late husband of respondent No. 2 was taken back in service by the Chandigarh Administration with continuity of service as daily wager of one year but without granting benefit of back wages. Thereafter, the late husband of respondent No. 2 continued working with the Chandigarh Administration till he died i.e. on 15.07.2008 while performing the government duty during working hours.

6. The claim for the grant of family pension was raised by respondent No. 2 by filing of OA-060/01081/2016 in pursuance to whcih a direction was given to the Chandigarh Administration by Tribunal so as to decide the claim of respondent raised by them vide legal notice dated

22.10.2016 by passing a speaking order, which claim was rejected by the Chandigarh Administration, which lead to the filing of OA by the respondent No. 2. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), has granted the said benefit to the respondent NO. 2 by placing reliance upon the certain facts such as that the late husband of respondent No. 2 had rendered 13 years of service with the petitioners herein upto the date of his death and further, that the family pension was to be granted under CPWD Manual, which requirements were fulfilled in the present case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till the late husband is to be treated as a regular employee, the pensionary benefits could not have been allowed in favour of respondent No. 1 and therefore, the grant of the said benefit by the Tribunal in favour of respondent No. 1 is without appreciating the said fact and the impugned