Khushboo Khanna Alias Gudia Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

The present petition has been f iled under Article 226/227 of t h e Constitutio n of India praying for issuance o f a writ, order or directions in t h e nature of c e rtiorari for quashing the order d ated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P- 1 ) passed by r espondent No.3 whereby the p e titioners have been wrongly he l d not entitled to the grant of family pension o n account of death of their fath e r late Sh.Ra m esh Kumar Khanna withou t taking into consideration t h e relevant fa c tors. Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandam u s n directing respondents No.1 to 3 to grant fa m ily pension to the petitioners o account of d eath of their father and release the proportionate family pensi o n in view of R ule 6.17 of Punjab Civil Serv i ces Rules, Volume-II, Part-I a n d

¶15

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

2

¶17

CWP-6581 - 2023

¶18

judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar 2000 AIR (SC) 735 and Vidyadhari and others Vs. Sukhrana Bai and others 2008(2) SCC 238. Lastly, prays for directing the respondents n o t to release t h e family pension in favour of r e spondent No.4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitio n er inter alia contends that fath e r of petitione r s served the Punjab State Powe r Corporation Limited and retir e d on 30.06.2 0 13 as Assistant Executive Eng i neer and ultimately passed aw a y on 13.05. 2 021. The marriage between the parents of petitioners w a s solemnized in October, 2005 upon which they cohabited as husband a n d wife. Fro m this wedlock, two children i. e . the petitioners were born. T h e petitioners b eing the minor children and t h erefore, dependent legal heirs o f the deceas e d employee are entitled to fami l y pension in terms of Rule 6.1 7 , Volume-II, Part-I, Punjab Civil Services R u les. The claim of the petitione r s is duly sup p orted by their various ID proof s including Aadhar card, Voter I D card, Birth C ertificate, Ration card (Annex u res P-2 to P-8) wherein the na m e of the dece a sed employee is mentioned as t h eir father. 4. Vide impugned order date d 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-1), respondent - Corporation rejected the claim of the petitioners merely on t h e ground tha t respondent No.4, alleged first w ife of the deceased, was able t o produce S uccession Certificate dated 06.10.2021 issued by SD M , Ludhiana( E ast). The respondent-Corpor a tion has failed to take in t o considerati o n that submitting the Successi o n Certificate is not mandatory t o prove eligibility for family pension. Fu r ther, the parents of petitione r s purchased a joint property measuring 109 sq. yards on Chandigarh Roa d ,

¶19

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

3

¶21

CWP-6581 - 2023

¶22

Ludhiana w here both of them lived to g ether with the petitioners. T h e deceased a l so deposited an amount of R s .5 lakhs the name of petition e r No.1, in he r HDFC Bank account, where h er mother is nominee. It was t h e petitioners and their mother who look e d after the deceased after h i s retirement t ill his death, and not responde n t No.4. Moreover, the mother o f petitioners f iled an application under Secti o n 12 of the Protection of Wom e n from Dom e stic Violence Act, 2005 (he r einafter ‘DV Act’) against t h e deceased p u rsuant to which vide order d a ted 06.10.2016(Annexure P-13), learned JM I C, Ludhiana awarded a sum of R s.6000/- p.m. as maintenance t o her and Rs.3000/- p.m. to each petitioner s , being his minor children. T h e petitioners a re also entitled to the admissib l e benefits in terms of Section 16 of the Hin d u Marriage Act and under Se c tion 8 of the Hindu Successi o n Act, 1956. As such, the petitioners, afte r the death of the deceased, a r e entitled to g et proportionate pension as pe r the family pension scheme. T h e case of the petitioner is also squarely cove r ed by the judgments rendered b y Hon’ble S u preme Court in Rameshwari Devi (supra) and Vidyadhari (supra) an d also the judgment rendered b y this Court in CWP-15267-202 1 , Khushboo Khanna and another Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others (Annexure P-18).

¶23

Per contra learned counsel fo r respondent-Corporation submi t s that the de c eased has never expressed an i ntention to provide any share i n the pensio n ary benefits to the petitione r s, rather, he has categorical l y mentioned the name of his first wife as h is nominee. Further, vide lett e r dated 23.0 9 .2013, the deceased communic a ted that the mother of petitione r s

¶24

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

4

¶26

CWP-6581 - 2023

¶27

is not his w ife and that respondent No.4 a n d her children would be entitl e d to his pens i onary benefits. The claim of r e spondent No.4 is also support e d by the Su c cession Certificate issued under Section 372 of the Indi a n Succession Act, 1925 by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Howeve r , the order d ated 06.10.2016(Annexure P- 1 3), granting maintenance und e r Section 12 of the DV Act, does not in any manner prove the validity of t h e marriage b e tween the deceased and the mo t her of petitioners.

¶28

Having heard the submission s made by learned counsel for t h e parties and after perusing the record with t heir able assistance, it transpir e s that the de c eased employee has mentioned the name of respondent No.4 a s nominee i n the service record. Ther e after, he wrote a letter dat e d 23.09.2013 , categorically stating that the mother of petitioners is not h i s wife.

¶29

6. Be that as it may, this Court c annot decide a disputed questi o n of facts, w hile exercising its powers un d er Article 226 and 227 of t h e Constitutio n of India. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Cou r t in Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bharati Industries 200 5 (12) 725 w hile speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat, observed that a s follows:

¶30

“9. A bare persual of the H igh Court's judgment shows th a t ther e was clear non-application of mind. On one hand the High Cou r t obse r ved that the disputed questio n s cannot be gone into a w r it petit i on. It was also noticed that e s sence of dispute was breach o f cont r act. After coming to the abo v e conclusions the High Cou r t shou l d have dismissed the writ petit i on. Surprisingly, the High Cou r t

¶31

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

5

¶33

CWP-6581 - 2023

¶34

proc e eded to examine the case solel y on the writ petitioner's asserti o n and on a very curious reasoni n g that though the appellan t - Corporation claimed that the value o f articles lifted was nearly rupe e s 14.9 0 lakhs no details were speci fi cally given. From the counte r - affid a vit filed before the High Cou r t it is crystal clear that releva n t details disputing claim of the writ petitioner were given. Value o f artic l es lifted by the writ petitione r is a disputed factual questio n . Whe r e a complicated question of f act is involved and the matt e r requ i res thorough proof on factual a s pects, the High Court should n o t ente r tain the writ petition. Whethe r or not the High Court shou l d exer c ise jurisdiction under Articl e 226 of the Constitution wou l d larg e ly depend upon the nature of di s pute and if the dispute cannot b e resol v ed without going into the fac t ual controversy, the High Cou r t shou l d not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petiti o n was p rimarily founded on allegatio n of breach of contract. Questi o n whet h er the action of the opposite p a rty in the writ petition amount e d to b r each of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts a n d woul d require material evidence to b e scrutinised and in such a ca s e writ j urisdiction should not be exerc i sed. (See : State of Bihar v. Ja i n Plas t ic & Chemicals Ltd., 2002(1) S C C 216).

¶35

10. In a catena of cases t his Court has held that whe r e disp u te revolves round questions of fact, the matter ought not b e ente r tained under Article 226 of th e Constitution. (See : Chairma n , Grid Corporation of Orissa LTd. ( G RIDCO) and Ors. v. Sukama n i Das (Smt.) and Anr., 1999(4) RCR ( Civil) 174 (SC) : (1999(7) SC C 298).”

¶36

7. Further, a two-Judge bench o f the Hon'ble Supreme Cou r t

¶37

in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) Vs. Smt. Sukaman i

¶38

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

6

¶40

CWP-6581 - 2023

¶41

Das 1999 (7) SCC 298 , while speaking th r ough Justice G.T Nanavati ma d e

¶42

the followi n g observations:

¶43

“6. In our opinion, the Hi g h Court committed an error i n entertaining the writ petition s even though they were not f it cases for exercising po w er under Article 226 of t h e Constitution. The High Court w ent wrong in proceeding on t h e basis that as the deaths had taken place because o f electrocution as a result of t h e deceased coming into conta c t with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of t h e appellants, that "admitte d ly/prima facie amounted t o negligence on the part of the a p pellants". The High Court fail e d to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort a n d negligence was required to be established firstly by t h e claimants. Mere fact that the wire of the electric transmissi o n line belonging to the appell a nt No. 1 had snapped and t h e deceased had come into conta c t with it and had died was not b y itself sufficient for awarding c ompensation. It also required t o be examined whether the wir e had snapped as a result of a n y negligence of the appellants a n d under which circumstances t h e deceased had come into cont a ct with the wire. In view of t h e specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cas e s they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care a n d precautions were taken in m a intaining the transmission lin e s and yet the wires had sna p ped because of circumstanc e s beyond their control or un a uthorised intervention of thi r d parties or that the deceased h a d not died in the manner stat e d by the petitioners. These quest i ons could not have been decid e d properly on the basis of affi d avits only. It is the settled leg a l position that where disputed q uestions of facts are involved a r petition under Article 226 of t he Constitution is not a prop e remedy. The High Court has n ot and could not have held th a t

¶44

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

7

¶46

CWP-6581 - 2023

¶47

the disputes in these cases w e re raised for the sake of raisi n g them and that there was no s u bstance therein. The High Cou r t should have directed the writ p etitioners to approach the Civil Court as it was done in OJC N o. 5229 of 1995.

¶48

7. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for t h e respondents on the decision o f this Court in Sanchalakshri v . Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad M ehta and another, 1999(1) S C T 88 (SC) : JT 1998(8) SC 55.”

¶49

In view of the discussion ab o ve, the present writ petition i s dismissed. H owever, the petitioners would b e at liberty to avail any alterna t e remedy av a ilable to them, strictly in accor d ance with law, for the redress a l of the grievances raised in the present petition.

¶50

9. Pending miscellaneous appli c ation(s), if any, shall also sta n d disposed o f .

¶51

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶52

October 28, 2025 P.C

¶53

Whether speaking/reaso n ed. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶54

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Khushboo Khanna Alias Gudia v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushboo Khanna Alias Gudia v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sham Lal through His Lrs Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajesh Garg Vs State of Punjab and Others

S Sarwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Smt. Usha Kant & Ors. Vs Pb.State & Ors.

Raajo Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Devinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.