Families of unregularized work-charged employees are not entitled to family pension.

The petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Beldar on work-charge basis in the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project on 11.09.1984 and died in service on 29.07.1993 after rendering approximately eight years and ten months of service.

The State issued a general regularisation policy on 07.05.1993 and a specific policy for Ranjit Sagar Dam work-charge employees on 13.03.1996. Since the petitioner’s husband had died before the 1996 policy came into force, his services were never regularised.

The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds in 1994 and her services were subsequently regularised in 1996.

Her claim for family pension was rejected on the ground that her husband was a work-charge employee and had never become a regular Government employee.

During the writ proceedings, pursuant to the Court’s order dated 04.07.2024, the State obtained Finance Department approval for grant of regular family pension, subject to the outcome of connected appeals, and forwarded the case to the Accountant General.

The petitioner had already received family pension pursuant to that process.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to family pension even though her deceased husband’s work-charge services had never been regularised.

Whether the petitioner’s claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, since her husband died in 1993 and the writ petition was instituted nearly 28 years later.

Whether the relief granted during the pendency of the writ petition rendered the proceedings infructuous, and whether amounts already paid as family pension could be recovered.

The Court applied Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, under which family pension is available to employees of a pensionable establishment but is expressly unavailable to work-charge staff, casual labour, contract employees and other excluded categories.

It relied on UHBVNL v. Surji Devi, 2008 (1) SCT 656, and State of Haryana v. Shakuntala Devi, 2009 AIR SC 869, for the principle that family pension is a statutory benefit available only where the deceased was a regular Government employee in a pensionable establishment; mere long or continued work-charge service does not confer that status.

The Court further relied on the Full Bench decision in Lakha Singh v. State of Punjab, 2016 (1) SCT 179, holding that a work-charge employee is not entitled to pension unless regularised, and the legal heirs are likewise not entitled to family pension unless the deceased employee’s services had been regularised.

State of Nagaland v. Nishevi Achumi, Civil Appeal No. 4223 of 2022, decided on 11.07.2022, was applied to reject retrospective regularisation after death where no enforceable entitlement to regularisation had arisen during the employee’s lifetime.

The Court distinguished and declared the contrary reasoning in Balwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and the connected LPA decision to be per incuriam for not applying the binding Supreme Court and Full Bench authorities.

On delay, the Court applied the principles that unexplained, inordinate delay and laches may disentitle a litigant to discretionary relief under Article 226, while recognising that pension claims may in appropriate cases constitute a continuing wrong.

The Court held that the petitioner’s husband remained a work-charge employee until his death and was never regularised.

Although the 07.05.1993 policy existed before his death, the Court found that no work-charge employee of the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project had in fact been regularised under that policy, and that regularisation under the specific 13.03.1996 policy could not arise because the husband had died before its commencement and could neither exercise the required option nor satisfy its conditions.

Consequently, the statutory exclusion of work-charge staff under Rule 6.17 applied, and the petitioner could not claim family pension merely on the basis of her husband’s length of service or the compassionate appointment subsequently granted to her.

The Court rejected reliance on Balwinder Kaur, distinguishing it on the ground that, in that case, the deceased employees had been eligible under an existing policy and their regularisation process had already been initiated but delayed by administrative inaction; no comparable right or pending process existed here.

The Court also found the writ petition grossly delayed and held that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained the approximately 28-year lapse between her husband’s death and the institution of proceedings.

Nevertheless, because family pension had already been released pursuant to the Court’s earlier order and the State’s subsequent approval, the Court protected the payments already made and directed that no recovery be effected.

The writ petition was dismissed both on merits and on the ground of delay and laches.

However, since the petitioner had already been paid family pension pursuant to the interim/procedural directions issued during the proceedings, the respondents were directed not to recover any amount already paid to her.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.