UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus SURJI DEVI

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1042 · Decided: 22-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 1042 
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. 
v. 
SURJI DEVI 
(Civil Appeal No. 576 of 2008) 
JANUARY 22, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Punjab Civil Services Rules: 
A 
B 
Scheme of Grant of Family Pension - Work-charge 
employee covered under Contributory Provident Fund C 
Scheme- Death of while in service - His widow granted benefit 
of Provident Fund Scheme - Her claim for Family Pension 
Scheme - Held: Rightly declined by the employer. 
The husband of the respondent, while in employment 0 
of the appellant-Nigam on work-charge basis, expired on 
11.8.1985. The deceased was a member of the 
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The respondent 
filed an application for grant of family pension.J.he claim 
having been declined, she filed a writ petition. The High E 
Court allowed the claim holding that though the writ 
petitioner had received the benefit under the EPF Scheme, 
the amount which she would receive on account of family 
pension would be higher. 
In the instant appeals filed by the Nigam, it was F 
contended for the appellant that the claim was contrary 
to the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as 
applicable to the State of Haryana; and that the deceased 
employee having been a member of Contributory 
Provident Fund, Family Pension Scheme was not G 
applicable in the instant case. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The scheme relating to grant of Family 
1042 
H 
1043 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A Pension was made under a statute. Para 11 of the Scheme 
of Grant of Family Pension as contained in Appendix 1 to 
the Punjab Civil Services Rules, excludes applicability of 
the Scheme inter alia in relation to the work-charge staff. 
The husband of the respondent was a work-charge 
B employee. His services were never regularized. The 
deceased husband of the respondent was a member of 
the Contributory Provident Fund. Even before the High 
Court the said position stood conceded but the 
respondent opted for the Pension Scheme only because 
C thereby she considered herself to be entitled to a higher 
. amount. [Paras 12,13,14] [1048-C, D, E, F, G] 
1.2 Furthermore, there exists a distinction between 
a pensionable and non-pensionable establishment. The 
deceased being a member of a non-pensionable 
D establishment, Family Pension was not admissible. 
Irrespective of whether or not Kanta Devi* was correctly 
decided, the facts therein were different, and evidently the 
questions which have been raised before this Court were 
not raised therein. The High Court, therefore, committed 
E a serious error in applying Kanta Devi to the ·facts of the 
present case. However, any benefit paid to the respondent 
would not be recovered. [Paras 14, 15] [1049-D, E, F, G; 
1050-A] 
,.... . 
• 
Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Ram Lal & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 
F 638; State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 
+-~ 
G 
9 SCALE 549; Regional Manager, SB/ vs. Mahatma Mishra, 
(2006) 11SCALE258; State of Karnataka vs. Ameerbi & Ors., 
(2006) 13 SCALE 319 and State of M.P & Ors. vs. Sanjay 
Kumar Pathak & Ors., (2007) 12 SCALE 72 - relied on. 
*Kanta Devi vs. State of Haryana & Ors., W.P. No.7506 
of 1998 decided by High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 
16.12.1999 - distinguished. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 576 
H of 2008. 
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. v. 
1044 
SURJI DEVI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
_...., 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.9.2003 of A 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. 
No. 1110/2003. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 577 and 587-588 of 2008. 
B 
~ -1 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, Sandeep 
Chaturvedi, Umang Shankar, Ugra Shankar Prasad, D.P. Singh, 
Sanjay Jain, Priyanka Singh, Rajat Vohra, Arvind Nayyar and 
Kavita Wadia for the Appellants. 
c 
Jasbir Singh Malik, S.K. Sabharwal, Kamakshi S. 
Mehiwal, Vikash Chatrath and M.K. Verma (for Anis Ahmed 
Khan) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA; J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
l 
" 
2. The short question involved in these appeals, arising 
out of the judgments and orders dated 18.09.2003 and 
5.03.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 
C.W.P. Nos. 631, 1110 of 2003 and Review Application No. 71 
E 
of 2004 respectively, is as to whether family members of a 
deceased employee who was appointed on a work-charged 
basis would be entitled to family pension? 
,.,~ 
3. For the purpose of disposal o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.