Dismissed¶41

(O&M) Secretary, Pseb Patiala v. Bhajan Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Mar 2026RSA/3114/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-3114-2006 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; Sudeepti Sharma, J.; decided 07.03.2026; PSEB ex-gratia; family pension; pensionary benefits; mother nominee of unmarried deceased employee; terrorist killing 15.10.1989; dependency certificate; recurring cause limitation; concurrent findings affirmed; second appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the decrees in favour of the respondent (entitling her to ex-gratia and pensionary benefits of her deceased son) stand affirmed, with parties left to bear their own costs. ¶41

(O&M) Secretary, Pseb Patiala Vs Bhajan Kaur and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the decrees in favour of the respondent (entitling her to ex-gratia and pensionary benefits of her deceased son) stand affirmed, with parties left to bear their own costs.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-mother, being the nominee of her deceased unmarried son employed with the Punjab State Electricity Board, is entitled to ex-gratia and pensionary/family pension benefits notwithstanding the appellant's contention that she was not dependant on his income. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

Since the deceased Rajinder Singh was unmarried and the respondent-mother was his nominee, in the absence of a widow the respondent is entitled to ex-gratia and family pension; the fact of nomination and the deceased's unmarried status cannot be ignored despite the appellant's plea that she was dependant on her husband.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The appellant placed no rule on record under which the mother of a deceased unmarried employee is excluded from ex-gratia payment and pensionary benefits; absent such a rule, the mother's entitlement stands.

¶37

Key takeaways

The limitation objection is rejected because the respondent was pursuing the department and payment of ex-gratia and pensionary benefits is a recurring cause which cannot be denied on the ground of limitation.ratio¶38
No infirmity or illegality is found in the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2002 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, or in the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006 of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, and both are affirmed.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (Punjab and Haryana High Court) - Secretary, P.S.E.B., Patiala v. Bhajan Kaur (through LRs.) - Ex-gratia and family/pensionary benefits of a meter reader of the Punjab State Electricity Board shot dead by a terrorist on 15.10.1989 in the course of his employment - Deceased was unmarried and his mother was his nominee - Board contended the mother was not dependant on the deceased's income and demanded a dependency certificate - Held: the fact that the mother was the nominee and the deceased was unmarried cannot be ignored; in the absence of a widow the mother is entitled to ex-gratia and family pension; the Board cited no rule excluding the mother's entitlement; the claim, being a recurring cause pursued with the department, is not barred by limitation - Concurrent findings of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur (decree dated 14.02.2002) and the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (judgment dated 17.04.2006) affirmed - Appeal dismissed, parties to bear their own costs.

¶1

RSA-3114-2006 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA-3114-2006 (O&M)

¶5

SECRETARY, P.S.E.B., PATIALA

¶6

..Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

BHAJAN KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Reserved on: 05.02.2026 Pronounced on : 07.03.2026 Uploaded on : 17.03.2026

¶11

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? Whether full judgment is pronounced?

¶12

¶13

YES

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶15

Present: Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advocate for the appellant.

¶16

Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate and Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

¶17

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶18

The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 14.02.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, whereby, the civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in her favour and judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated 14.02.2002 was dismissed. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

¶19

Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings in the civil suit are that respondent is mother of late Rajinder Singh son of Mohan Singh, who

¶20

MOHD AYUB 2026.03.17 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶21

RSA-3114-2006 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

was employed in Punjab State Electricity Board, Head Office, Patiala and was working as meter reader under the supervision of Additional Superintending Engineer, AR/Sancha Division, Dhariwal. Rajinder Singh was shot dead on 15.10.1989 by the terrorist. At that time, Rajinder Singh was unmarried and his mother i.e. respondent was dependant upon him and was also nominee of her son. She represented appellant for her entitlement to claim ex-gratia and pensionary benefits of her deceased son but appellant refused to accede to her requests and asked respondent to produce dependancy certificate, which she was unable to get from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur. Therefore, she filed the civil suit for mandatory injunction directing the appellant for releasing ex-gratia and pensionary benefits of her late son Rajinder Singh son of Mohan Singh, meter reader in Punjab State Electricity Board at Division Office, PSEB, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur and appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated 14.02.2002 was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide its judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.

¶24

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that both the Courts have wrongly decreed the civil suit in favour of respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. He further contends that since the respondent is mother of deceased Rajinder Singh and is not dependant on

¶26

MOHD AYUB 2026.03.17 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶27

RSA-3114-2006 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

income of her son, therefore, she is not entitled to family pension or other benefits.

¶30

He further contends that deceased Rajinder Singh worked only for three months and the respondent was not able to produce the dependancy certificate as demanded by the appellant, therefore, she is wrongly held entitled to by both the Courts. He further contends that the civil suit filed by the respondent was barred by limitation. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contends that both the Courts have rightly decreed the civil suit filed by the respondent and rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the whole record of the case with their able assistance. 7. Admittedly, deceased Rajinder Singh son of respondent was working as meter reader in Punjab State Electricity Board. He was shot dead on 15.10.1989 by terrorist during the course of his employment. He was unmarried and respondent, who is his mother was dependant upon her son and was also his nominee. Further the appellant has not placed on record any rule as per which the mother would not be entitled to ex-gratia or family pension. And though it is the stand of the appellant that respondent-mother was not dependant upon her son (Rajinder Singh) and was dependant upon her husband, who was working as Clerk in Sugar Mill, Batala but the fact that mother was his nominee and deceased Rajinder Singh was unmarried cannot be ignored, therefore, in the absence of widow of deceased Rajinder

¶33

MOHD AYUB 2026.03.17 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶34

RSA-3114-2006 (O&M)

¶35

-4-

¶36

Singh, who was unmarried respondent would be entitled to ex-gratia and family pension.

¶37

Further, the appellant did not cite any rule as per which the mother is not entitled to ex-gratia payment as well as pensionary benefits of her deceased son-Rajinder Singh, who was unmarried.

¶38

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to civil suit being time barred is concerned, the same is also rejected since respondent was pursuing with the department and the payment of ex-gratia as well as pensionary benefits is recurring cause, which cannot be denied on the ground of limitation.

¶39

DECISION

¶40

In view of the same, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in judgment and decree dated 14.02.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur and judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur and the same are hereby affirmed.

¶41

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed . Parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶42

Decree sheet be drawn.

¶43

07.03.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Sahil JUDGE

¶44

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

¶45

MOHD AYUB 2026.03.17 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

(O&M) Secretary, Pseb Patiala v. Bhajan Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Secretary, Pseb Patiala v. Bhajan Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswinder Kaur and Others Vs Sukhwinder Singh and Others

Kavita etc. Vs Bijender etc.

Sarishta Devi and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

(O&M) Kamal Gupta Vs Raj Kumar and Others

Yoginder Pal Gupta Vs Raj Kumar and Others

Love Tanwar Vs Mohan Lal etc.