Disposed¶36

Rajinder Bir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2025CWP/2618/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension; death-cum-retirement benefits; Junior Engineer; Department of Housing and Urban Development; deputation/absorption to PUDA; Punjab Housing & Development Board; Clause F willing employees; pensionary benefits protected; Rule 5.3 Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II; Section 3 Punjab Urban Estates (Development & Resolutions) Act 1964; Mukhtiar Singh CWP-22642-2012; memo dated 20.11.2019 quashing sought; disposed with four-month direction to State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to decide the petitioner's claim for family pension and death-cum-retirement benefits within four months, after notice and hearing, granting the benefit forthwith if found entitled; any adverse order to contain reasons, leaving the petitioner free to seek legal redress. ¶36

Rajinder Bir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension and other death-cum-retirement benefits in respect of the service rendered by her late husband from 20.09.1988 to 26.11.1998 prior to his transfer to PUDA, notwithstanding the memo dated 20.11.2019 declining the claim on the ground that his wife is not entitled to separate family pension.

¶18

Court's answer

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to take a decision on the petitioner's claim.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The respondent-State must render its decision within a period of four months, and this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address the claim in a just, fair and reasonable manner.

¶36

Key takeaways

The decision is to be made after offering notice and hearing to the petitioner, and if she is found entitled, the benefit is to be granted forthwith.ratio¶36
If the orders passed are adverse to the petitioner's interest, they shall contain reasons.ratio¶36
The petitioner shall remain free to seek legal redress against any adverse order.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Aman Chaudhary, J., oral) disposed of a writ petition by Rajinder Bir Kaur challenging the memo dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-11) declining family pension and other death-cum-retirement benefits for the service of her late husband, a Junior Engineer appointed on 20.09.1988 in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, rendered from 20.09.1988 to 26.11.1998 before his transfer to PUDA pursuant to the decision dated 29.04.1991 (Annexure R-1), the rejection resting on the ground that his wife was not entitled to separate family pension. Without commenting on the merits, the Court directed the respondent-State to decide the claim within four months in a just, fair and reasonable manner, after notice and hearing, granting the benefit forthwith if found entitled; any adverse order must carry reasons, and the petitioner remains free to seek legal redress. Counsel invoked Clause F of the 1991 decision, Rule 5.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, and this Court's earlier ruling in Mukhtiar Singh (CWP-22642-2012).

¶1

CWP-2618-2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

236

¶5

CWP-2618-2020 Date of decision: 09.01.2025

Rajinder Bir Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶12

¶13

Present : Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG, Punjab.

¶15

Mr. Sehajbir Singh and Ms. Karishma Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.4.

¶16

¶17

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

¶18

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing of the memo dated 20.11.2019, Annexure P-11, whereby the prayer of the petitioner to release family pension and other death-cum-retirement benefits for the service rendered by her husband since deceased from 20.09.1988 to 26.11.1998 prior to his transfer to PUDA, has been declined on the ground that his wife is not entitled to separate family pension.

¶19

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not been granted family pension at all and it was not a case of any separate family pension. The facts refers to are that the husband of the petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer, appointed on 20.09.1988 in Department of Housing and Urban Development, was given an option for transfer on deputation to Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, in the wake of the fact that the assets of the department had been transferred as per the decision dated 29.04.1991, Annexure R-1, the relevant paras whereof read thus:-

¶20

HAMANT 2025.01.10 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-2618-2020

¶22

¶23

“With a view to ensure the proper and speedy development and maintenance of all the existing Urban Estates in Punjab; to provide an integrated approach to their maintenance and development; to ensure that there is a full provision of the necessary infrastructure and facilities in these existing Urban Estates; as well as to generate resources for the establishment of new Housing Development and Improvement schemes and extended/satalite townships; the President of India in exercise of the powers vested under Section 3 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development & Resolutions) Act, 1964, is pleased to order with immediate effect the transfer of all the assets pertaining to the existing Urban Estates in Punjab and vest them in the Punjab Housing & Development Board, upon the following terms & conditions:-

¶24

….(F) Only such employees/officers of the Department of Housing and Urban Development would be transferred on deputation to the Punjab Housing Development Board, who are willing to go on deputation. There shall be no retrenchments of any serving staff of the Department of Urban Development as a consequence of this decision. Nothing shall be done in any way whatsoever to adversely affect the rights of the employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to future promotion and prospects as well at their inter-seseniority and retirement/ pensionary benefits .”

¶25

Reference is made to Rule 5.3 of the Punjab Civil Services

¶26

Rules, Volume-II, which reads thus:-

¶27

“5.3. (1) When a Government employee is transferred from pensionable Government service to a non-pensionable establishment, he cannot be granted any pension or gratuity admissible to him for the qualifying portion of his service until he actually retires from the non-pensionable establishment to which he is transferred.

¶28

(2) A permanent Government employee who may be permitted to be permanently absorbed in a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by Government, or Municipality, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, shall, if such absorption is declared by Government to be in the public interest, be deemed to have retired from Government service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefit which he may have elected or deemed to have elected, and from the date of such absorption or the date of his voluntary retirement, whichever is later. Each such Government employee is required to exercise an option within six months of his absorption for either of the alternatives indicated below–

¶29

HAMANT 2025.01.10 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CWP-2618-2020

¶31

¶32

(a) receiving the monthly pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity under the usual Government arrangements; or

¶33

(b) receiving the death-cum-retirement gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension worked out with reference to the commutation table obtaining on the date from which the commuted value becomes payable.”

¶34

4. Learned counsel further submits that it is apparent from the decision of 1991 that the same was taken in public interest and thus the right of employees stands protected by Clause F thereof. In terms of above Rule, the State Govt. is yet to take a decision, without which the claim could not be rejected. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others , CWP-22642-2012, decided on 05.10.2016, against which no challenge was made, a case of an employee transferred to the Punjab State Leather Development Corporation, who was allowed pension and other pensionary benefits by taking into account the service rendered in Punjab Government Tanning Centre, Kotakapura, which was pensionable.

¶35

5. Learned counsel states, on instructions, that the matter is required to be decided by the State Govt. in a time bound manner, to which learned State counsel has no objection.

¶36

6. In view of the above and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to �� , within a period of four months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and hearing offered to �� and if found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to her interest, the same shall contain reasons HAMANT 2025.01.10 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CWP-2618-2020

¶38

¶39

and petitioner shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon��

¶40

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶41

09.01.2025 Hemant

¶42

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶43