Death before joining an allotted regular post cannot defeat family pension rights.

The petitioner’s husband, Jasbir Singh, was engaged as a Special Police Officer (“SPO”) on daily-wage basis with the Punjab Police from 2 November 1994. After qualifying the prescribed suitability tests, he was found suitable for absorption as a regular Constable and was allotted Constabulary No. 27/438 and allocated to the 27th Battalion, Punjab Armed Police, by order dated 9 January 2009.

He died on 14 January 2009, five days before he could formally join the post. The absorption approval was subsequently withdrawn on 6 February 2009 on the ground that the formal order could not be issued before his death.

The petitioner was later appointed as a regular Cook on compassionate grounds by order dated 15 March 2017.

Although she had withdrawn her claim in CWP-2931-2018, the High Court subsequently modified the withdrawal order on 18 May 2023 and directed that the benefit of the earlier order should extend to her as well.

Upon reconsideration, the respondents rejected her claim by order dated 14 February 2024, holding that her husband had never become a regular employee or formally joined as a Constable.

1. Whether the petitioner could be denied family pension and other pensionary benefits merely because her husband died before formally joining the regular post of Constable, despite having been found suitable for absorption and allotted a Constabulary Number?

2. Whether the deceased employee’s service as an SPO was required to be counted for determining the petitioner’s entitlement to family pension and other consequential pensionary benefits in terms of the precedents governing similarly situated employees?

The Court relied principally on Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, reported as 2012 (3) S.C.T. 362, which recognised the entitlement of similarly situated Special Police Officers to pensionary benefits by counting qualifying prior service.

It also applied Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Others, CWP-11802-2008, decided on 11 May 2016, and the order in Constable Rajesh Kumar & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, CWP-24472-2015, decided on 7 January 2016, under which similarly situated widows were granted family pension and consequential retiral benefits.

The Court further relied on Lajwanti v. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. & Others, 2016 (2) S.C.T. 118, for the principle that an employee otherwise entitled to regularisation or regular appointment cannot be deprived of the consequential family-pension benefit merely because death intervened before formal regularisation.

The Court also referred to Hasan Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2026 NCAHC-LKO 54169, for the principle that an accrued right to consideration for regularisation may be considered notionally after the employee’s death so that consequential benefits may pass to the legal heirs.

The broader principle applied was that the State cannot rely on a fortuitous event—particularly an employee’s death before formal joining—to defeat a substantive benefit already crystallised by a competent authority’s decision.

The Court held that the deceased had not merely been a serving SPO awaiting consideration: he had successfully undergone the suitability process, had been found suitable for absorption as a Constable, allotted a Constabulary Number, and allocated to a specific battalion by the competent authority.

His failure to physically join the post resulted solely from his death five days after the absorption order and was therefore an event beyond his control.

The subsequent withdrawal of the approval could not retrospectively extinguish the substantive benefit that had already accrued.

Applying Harbans Lal, Paramjit Kaur and the principles concerning deemed regularisation, the Court concluded that the deceased was required to be treated as absorbed against the regular post of Constable and that his prior SPO service was to be considered for determining the petitioner’s pensionary entitlement.

The Court also considered it significant that the respondents had themselves granted the petitioner compassionate appointment as a regular Cook, making it inequitable to deny her family pension on the technical ground that her husband had not formally joined as Constable.

The respondents were directed to treat the deceased husband as having been absorbed against the regular post of Constable and to consider his service as an SPO in accordance with Paramjit Kaur for determining the petitioner’s entitlement to family pension and other pensionary benefits.

The respondents were further directed to calculate and release the family pension and all consequential benefits within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.