Allowed¶33

Radha Rani v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jan 2026CWP/6818/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: extraordinary pension; pensionary benefits; delay and laches; continuing wrong; limitation; belated claim; Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench; remand for fresh adjudication on merits; Radha Rani; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL); Extraordinary Pension Rules (Columns 1 and 2, 7-year limit); arrears normally restricted to three years (per quoted Supreme Court paras); duty of State towards legal heirs/spouse of deceased employee; CWP-6818-2020; speaking/reasoned: yes; reportable: no.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 13.09.2019 set aside; writ petition allowed; matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits regarding entitlement to extraordinary pension; parties directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.02.2026. ¶33

Radha Rani Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal could decline the petitioner's claim for grant of extraordinary pension solely on the ground that it was raised belatedly. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Delay cannot be a ground for denying the claim of pensionary benefits; denial of the benefit of extraordinary pension, to which the petitioner is otherwise entitled, mainly on the ground of delay in raising the claim, cannot be accepted.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

It becomes the duty of the State to give the entitled pensionary benefit to the legal heirs or the spouse of the deceased employee, who were never made aware of the rules regarding limitation for raising such claims.

¶28

Key takeaways

The order passed by the Tribunal declining the claim on the ground of delay is contrary to the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is accordingly set aside.ratio¶28
The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits on the petitioner's entitlement to extraordinary pension; the Court makes no observation on entitlement, which is to be decided by the Tribunal keeping in view the facts and rules brought on record by the parties.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Extraordinary pension - claim of petitioner declined by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (order dated 13.09.2019, Annexure P-7) solely on the ground that it was raised belatedly - held, delay cannot be a ground for denying pensionary benefits; denial of an entitled pensionary benefit is a continuing wrong. Following the settled principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (precedent name/citation illegible in source), the Court held it is the duty of the State to grant entitled pensionary benefits to the legal heirs or spouse of a deceased employee who were never made aware of limitation rules; rejection mainly on the ground of delay cannot be accepted. Tribunal order set aside; matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits, with no observation by the Court on actual entitlement; parties directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.02.2026. Respondents had invoked Columns 1 and 2 of the Extraordinary Pension Rules prescribing a 7-year limit for applications. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

�� 

��

��

�� ! �"#��$%��%��

RADHA RANI

...Petitioner

Versus

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

��&#��'�(��&�%��)��)�&��)��)�� '�(��&�%��)��*�+�)�)��

¶11

Present:� Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. (Through V.C.)

¶12

Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Senior Panel Counsel, for the respondents�UOI.

¶13

¶14

��)�&��)��)��,��%�-��(.

¶15

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P�7) passed by respondent No. 2�Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by which, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of extraordinary pension has been declined on the ground that the same is raised belatedly.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that as per the settled principle of law, delay is not to be taken into account in matters relating to grant of pensionary benefits as the denial of an entitled pensionary benefit constitutes a continuing wrong. Learned counsel further submits that the claim has not been decided on merits by the Tribunal and therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merits.

¶17

HARISH KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

(2)

¶19

CWP�6818�2020

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as per Columns 1 and 2 of the Extraordinary Pension Rules, the application has to be filed within a period of 7 years and no application can be undertaken thereafter and the rejection of the claim, therefore, by the Tribunal is valid. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case with their able assistance.

¶21

As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in �� , -��.��)��/�, � delay cannot be a ground for denying the claim of pensionary benefits. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:�

¶22

“5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re� opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re�fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion

¶23

HARISH KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

(3)

¶25

CWP�6818�2020

¶26

etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

¶27

In this case, the delay of 16 years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to 16 years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances.”

¶28

Further, it becomes the duty of the State to give the entitled pensionary benefit to the legal heirs or the spouse of the deceased employee. The legal heirs or the spouses of the deceased employee were never made aware of the rules regarding the limitation for raising such claims, to which they are entitled. Hence, denial of the benefit of extraordinary pension, to which petitioner is otherwise entitled mainly on the ground of delay in raising the claim, cannot be accepted. The order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled principle of law laid down in �� case (supra) and therefore, cannot be accepted and is accordingly set aside.

¶29

The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication on merits with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to the

¶30

HARISH KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶31

CWP�6818�2020 (4)

¶32

extraordinary pension. It is clarified that this Court is not making any observation with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to the grant of extraordinary pension, which will be decided by the Tribunal on merits, keeping in view the facts and the rules brought on record by the parties concerned. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.02.2026.

¶33

The writ petition is allowed of in above terms.

¶34

-��)�&��)��)��. ��

¶35

-�*�+�)�)��. ��"0�12��$,��  �� Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶36

HARISH KUMAR 2026.01.20 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Radha Rani v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Rani v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others

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

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs Central Administrative Tribunal

Nachhatar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and Ors.

Satinder Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ravinder Pal Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Reveue Punjab and Others

Ajay Singh @ Satbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurpartap Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others