Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Family Pension and Gratuity to Heirs of Removed Employee; Holds Prior Removal Breaks Qualifying Service
Case Name: Shakuntla Devi and Others v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others
Date of Judgment: 16 January 2026
Citation: RSA-3189-2001
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that family pension and gratuity are not admissible where the deceased employee stood removed from service and was subsequently engaged afresh on a temporary/work-charged basis without completion of the requisite qualifying service. The Court held that service rendered prior to removal cannot be counted for pensionary benefits in view of the statutory rules, and that rejection of compassionate appointment cannot be reopened when the rejection order has attained finality.
Summary: The Regular Second Appeal was filed by the legal heirs of late Ram Karan, who was initially appointed as Assistant Lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board in 1970. Owing to prolonged illness, he remained absent from duty and was removed from service on 02.07.1981. After recovery, he was re-engaged in April 1982 on a work-charged/temporary basis but again remained absent and died in harness on 14.09.1985.
The appellants instituted a civil suit seeking declaration and mandatory injunction for release of family pension, gratuity, ex-gratia payment, GPF, compassionate appointment, and arrears of salary. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and granted family pension, gratuity, GPF and ex-gratia payment, while directing consideration of compassionate appointment.
On appeal by the Board, the Lower Appellate Court set aside the grant of family pension, gratuity and compassionate appointment, holding that the deceased was not a regular employee at the time of death, had not completed the qualifying service, and that compassionate appointment had already been rejected by a separate order which was never challenged.
Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the initial removal from service was illegal as no enquiry was held and that prior regular service ought to be counted for retiral benefits. The Board opposed the appeal relying upon the Punjab Civil Services Rules and the Family Pension Scheme, asserting that removal from service results in forfeiture of past service.
The High Court upheld the findings of the Lower Appellate Court, holding that family pension is admissible only to regular employees, and gratuity is barred where an employee stands removed from service or has not completed the minimum qualifying service after reappointment. The Court further held that once compassionate appointment was rejected by a separate order which attained finality, no direction could be issued in second appeal.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court denying family pension, gratuity and compassionate appointment was affirmed. The appellants were held entitled only to General Provident Fund and ex-gratia payment as already upheld by the appellate court.