IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kalasho ... Petitioner Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ... Respondents Reserved on: 02.12.2025 Pronounced on: 19.12.2025 Uploaded on: 19.12.2025 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced ? No Whether full judgment is pronounced ? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the respondents.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Family Pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 29.12.2000, i.e., the date of death of her husband and all the consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner's late husband was appointed on work-charged basis on 01.10.1977 and rendered continuous service for over 21 years. He further submits that the services of the deceased were regularized as Assistant Lineman (ALM) vide office order dated 11.02.1999. It is urged that despite the regularization, the deceased was not allowed to join his regular post on account of administrative reasons, as is evident from communication dated 07.11.2000 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner’s husband unfortunately expired on 29.12.2000, as discernible from the death certificate dated 15.01.2001 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Milan Rani Vs. The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another, CWP No. 12668 of 2010, decided on 04.10.2011, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and contends that the petitioner is entitled to Family Pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, as applicable to the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the cause of action arose in the year 2000, whereas the present petition has been instituted after an inordinate delay of 23 years, which is fatal to the petitioner’s claim. Further the deceased employee, despite the regularization order dated 11.02.1999, never joined as a regular employee and remained a work-charged employee till his death. It is submitted that no appointment letter was ever issued to him for the regular post of ALM and hence, he cannot be treated as a regular employee for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Further, when the employee passed away, he was a work charged employee and as such, his dependents would not be entitled for family pension.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

5. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Milan Rani’s case (supra) is factually distinguishable. In that case, the employee had completed more than 11 years of service and his regularization, though posthumous, was accepted by the department. In the present case, the respondents have categorically asserted that the deceased never joined as a regular employee and no formal appointment letter was issued to him. The communication dated 07.11.2000 (Annexure P-1) only indicates a request for posting and does not constitute proof of joining or regularization in service.

6. The question that whether family members or dependents of a work-charge employee or an employee, whose services were not regularized, be entitled to family pension upon the demise of that employee, is no longer res integra.

7. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Surji Devi, 2008(2) SCC 310, while speaking through Justice S.B Sinha, observed as under: -

“14. The scheme relating to grant of Family Pension was made under a statute. A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the statutory interdicts. From a bare perusal o