CWP-6581- IN TH 245 Khushboo Kh Punjab State CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution nature of cer passed by res not entitled to late Sh.Ram relevant facto directing resp account of de in view of R 1 -2023 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date boo Khanna alias Gudia and another VERSUS State Power Corporation Limited and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, A Mr. Prashant Manchanda and M respondents No.1 to 3 with Sh. K office of PSPCL. REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been fil tution of India praying for issuance of certiorari for quashing the order da by respondent No.3 whereby the peti itled to the grant of family pension on h.Ramesh Kumar Khanna without t factors. Further for issuance of a w g respondents No.1 to 3 to grant fami t of death of their father and release th of Rule 6.17 of Punjab Civil Service NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-6581-2023 Date of Decision: October 28, 2025 ....Petitioners SUS ed and others ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR arma, Advocates for the petitioners. and Mr. Angad Singh, Advocates for h Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, Officer from een filed under Article 226/227 of the ce of a writ, order or directions in the rder dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) e petitioners have been wrongly held on account of death of their father thout taking into consideration the of a writ in the nature of mandamus nt family pension to the petitioners on ease the proportionate family pension Services Rules, Volume-II, Part-I and , 2025 ioners ondents s for rom of the in the 1) y held father n the mus ers on nsion I and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- judgments of Bihar 2000 and others 20 to release the 2. of petitioners on 30.06.201 on 13.05.202 solemnized i wife. From t petitioners be the deceased Volume-II, P is duly suppo card, Birth C of the deceas 4. respondent- ground that r produce Su Ludhiana(Eas consideration prove eligibi purchased a 2 -2023 nts of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 000 AIR (SC) 735 and Vidyadhar rs 2008(2) SCC 238. Lastly, prays f se the family pension in favour of resp Learned counsel for the petitione tioners served the Punjab State Power C 06.2013 as Assistant Executive Engin .05.2021. The marriage between th ized in October, 2005 upon which t rom this wedlock, two children i.e. ers being the minor children and the eased employee are entitled to family II, Part-I, Punjab Civil Services Rul supported by their various ID proofs i irth Certificate, Ration card (Annexure eceased employee is mentioned as the Vide impugned order dated -Corporation rejected the claim o that respondent No.4, alleged first wi e Succession Certificate dated 0 na(East). The respondent-Corporati eration that submitting the Succession eligibility for family pension. Furt sed a joint property measuring 109 s rt in Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of hari and others Vs. Sukhrana Bai rays for directing the respondents not of respondent No.4. etitioner inter alia contends that father ower Corporation Limited and retired Engineer and ultimately passed away een the parents of petitioners was hich they cohabited as husband and n i.e. the petitioners were born. The nd therefore, dependent legal heirs of family pension in terms of Rule 6.17, es Rules. The claim of the petitioners roofs including Aadhar card, Voter ID nexures P-2 to P-8) wherein the name as their father. dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-1), laim of the petitioners merely on the irst wife of the deceased, was able to ted 06.10.2021 issued by SDM, rporation has failed to take into ession Certificate is not mandatory to Further, the parents of petitioners 109 sq. yards on Chandigarh Road, e of Bai ts not father etired away s was d and . The irs of 6.17, ioners ter ID name 1), on the ble to SDM, into ory to ioners Road, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- Ludhiana wh deceased also No.1, in her petitioners a retirement til petitioners fil from Domes deceased pur learned JMIC her and Rs.3 petitioners ar of the Hindu Act, 1956. entitled to ge case of the pe Hon’ble Sup (supra) and a Khushboo K and others 4. that the dece the pensiona mentioned th dated 23.09.2 3 -2023 na where both of them lived toget ed also deposited an amount of Rs.5 n her HDFC Bank account, where he ers and their mother who looked ent till his death, and not respondent ers filed an application under Section omestic Violence Act, 2005 (herei ed pursuant to which vide order date JMIC, Ludhiana awarded a sum of R d Rs.3000/- p.m. to each petitioners, ers are also entitled to the admissible Hindu Marriage Act and under Secti 956. As such, the petitioners, after to get proportionate pension as per t the petitioner is also squarely covered le Supreme Court in Rameshwari and also the judgment rendered by t oo Khanna and another Vs. Punjab rs (Annexure P-18). Per contra learned counsel for r e deceased has never expressed an in nsionary benefits to the petitioners ned the name of his first wife as hi 3.09.2013, the deceased communicate together with the petitioners. The f Rs.5 lakhs the name of petitioner ere her mother is nominee. It was the ooked after the deceased after his ndent No.4. Moreover, the mother of ection 12 of the Protection of Women (hereinafter ‘DV Act’) against the er dated 06.10.2016(Annexure P-13), of Rs.6000/- p.m. as maintenance to oners, being his minor children. The issible benefits in terms of Section 16 r Section 8 of the Hindu Succession after the death of the deceased, are s per the family pension scheme. The overed by the judgments rendered by ari Devi (supra) and Vidyadhari d by this Court in CWP-15267-2021, njab State Power Corporation Ltd el for respondent-Corporation submits an intention to provide any share in ioners, rather, he has categorically as his nominee. Further, vide letter unicated that the mother of petitioners . The tioner as the er his her of omen st the 13), nce to . The ion 16 ession d, are e. The red by hari 2021, Ltd bmits are in rically letter ioners PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- is not his wif to his pensio by the Succ Succession A the order da Section 12 of marriage betw 5. parties and a that the dece nominee in 23.09.2013, wife. 6. of facts, wh Constitution in Orissa Ag (12) 725 wh follows: “9. there w observ petitio contra should 4 -2023 his wife and that respondent No.4 and pensionary benefits. The claim of resp Succession Certificate issued unde sion Act, 1925 by the learned Sub D er dated 06.10.2016(Annexure P-13 12 of the DV Act, does not in any m ge between the deceased and the mothe Having heard the submissions m and after perusing the record with th e deceased employee has mentioned t ee in the service record. Thereaf 013, categorically stating that the m Be that as it may, this Court can ts, while exercising its powers unde tution of India. A two-Judge Bench Agro Industries Corporation Ltd while speaking through Justice A A bare persual of the Hig ere was clear non-application of min served that the disputed questions tition. It was also noticed that ess ntract. After coming to the above ould have dismissed the writ petitio .4 and her children would be entitled of respondent No.4 is also supported under Section 372 of the Indian Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, 13), granting maintenance under any manner prove the validity of the mother of petitioners. sions made by learned counsel for the ith their able assistance, it transpires oned the name of respondent No.4 as hereafter, he wrote a letter dated the mother of petitioners is not his urt cannot decide a disputed question under Article 226 and 227 of the Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court Ltd. Vs. Bharati Industries 2005 tice Arijit Pasayat, observed that as High Court's judgment shows that f mind. On one hand the High Court tions cannot be gone into a writ t essence of dispute was breach of bove conclusions the High Court tition. Surprisingly, the High Court ntitled ported Indian ever, under of the or the spires o.4 as dated ot his ion of the Court 005 hat as that ourt writ h of ourt ourt PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- procee and o Corpo 14.90 affidav details article Where require enterta exercis largely resolve should was pr whethe to brea would writ ju Plastic 10. dispute enterta Grid C Das (S 298). 7. in Chairman 5 -2023 oceeded to examine the case solely o d on a very curious reasoning rporation claimed that the value of .90 lakhs no details were specific fidavit filed before the High Court tails disputing claim of the writ p ticles lifted by the writ petitioner here a complicated question of fa quires thorough proof on factual asp tertain the writ petition. Whether ercise jurisdiction under Article rgely depend upon the nature of disp solved without going into the factu ould not entertain the writ petition. s primarily founded on allegation o ether the action of the opposite par breach of contractual obligation u uld require material evidence to be it jurisdiction should not be exercis astic & Chemicals Ltd., 2002(1) SCC In a catena of cases th spute revolves round questions of tertained under Article 226 of the rid Corporation of Orissa LTd. (GR as (Smt.) and Anr., 1999(4) RCR (C 8).” Further, a two-Judge bench of man, Grid Corporation of Orissa Lt ely on the writ petitioner's assertion ning that though the appellant e of articles lifted was nearly rupees cifically given. From the counter urt it is crystal clear that relevant rit petitioner were given. Value of ner is a disputed factual question. f fact is involved and the matter l aspects, the High Court should not her or not the High Court should cle 226 of the Constitution would dispute and if the dispute cannot be actual controversy, the High Court on. As noted above, the writ petition ion of breach of contract. Question party in the writ petition amounted on ultimately depends on facts and to be scrutinised and in such a case ercised. (See : State of Bihar v. Jain SCC 216). s this Court has held that where of fact, the matter ought not be the Constitution. (See : Chairman, . (GRIDCO) and Ors. v. Sukamani R (Civil) 174 (SC) : (1999(7) SCC of the Hon'ble Supreme Court sa Ltd. (Gridco) Vs. Smt. Sukamani tion lant- pees ter- ant e of tion. atter not ould ould t be ourt ition tion nted and case Jain here t be an, ani SCC Court ani PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- Das 1999 (7) the following 6 -2023 9 (7) SCC 298, while speaking throu lowing observations: “6. In our opinion, the High entertaining the writ petitions cases for exercising powe Constitution. The High Court w basis that as the deaths h electrocution as a result of the with snapped live wires of the e appellants, that "admittedl negligence on the part of the app to appreciate that all these ca negligence was required to claimants. Mere fact that the w line belonging to the appellan deceased had come into contact itself sufficient for awarding co be examined whether the wire h negligence of the appellants and deceased had come into contac specific defences raised by the a they deserved an opportunity t precautions were taken in mai and yet the wires had snapp beyond their control or unau parties or that the deceased had by the petitioners. These questio properly on the basis of affida position that where disputed qu petition under Article 226 of th remedy. The High Court has no g through Justice G.T Nanavati made High Court committed an error in ons even though they were not fit ower under Article 226 of the rt went wrong in proceeding on the s had taken place because of f the deceased coming into contact the electric transmission lines of the ttedly/prima facie amounted to e appellants". The High Court failed se cases were actions in tort and to be established firstly by the he wire of the electric transmission ellant No. 1 had snapped and the tact with it and had died was not b g compensation. It also required to ire had snapped as a result of any and under which circumstances the ntact with the wire. In view of the the appellants in each of these cases ity to prove that proper care and maintaining the transmission lines napped because of circumstances unauthorised intervention of third had not died in the manner stated estions could not have been decided ffidavits only. It is the settled legal d questions of facts are involved a of the Constitution is not a proper s not and could not have held that made r in t fit the the of tact f the to iled and the sion the t by d to any s the f the ases and lines nces hird ated ided egal ed a oper that PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6581- 8. dismissed. Ho remedy avail of the grievan 9. disposed of. October 28, P.C 7 -2023 the disputes in these cases wer them and that there was no sub should have directed the writ p Court as it was done in OJC No 7. Reliance placed b respondents on the decision of Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad M 88 (SC) : JT 1998(8) SC 55.” In view of the discussion abov However, the petitioners would be available to them, strictly in accorda rievances raised in the present petition Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. er 28, 2025 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : were raised for the sake of raising substance therein. The High Court rit petitioners to approach the Civil No. 5229 of 1995. d by the learned Counsel for the n of this Court in Sanchalakshri v. ad Mehta and another, 1999(1) SCT n above, the present writ petition is uld be at liberty to avail any alternate ccordance with law, for the redressal etition. pplication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No sing ourt ivil the ri v. SCT ion is ernate ressal stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.10 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document