2026:HHC:4997-DB IN THE HIGH Court OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1542 of 2013 Decided on: 28.02.2026 Smt. Summu Devi … Petitioner Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant family pension to the petitioner of her deceased husband Shri Durga Dass, instead of pension of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme with effect from 29.11.2011 with interest @ 12% per annum, by issuing a writ of mandamus. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (iii) That the cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner has approached his Court, praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant her family pension instead of pension under the Contributory Provident Fund 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:4997-DB Scheme as from the date of death of her late husband. 3. Certain facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that late husband of the petitioner, was earlier serving in Beas-Satluj-Link-Project, under Beas Construction Board and was discharged on 30.01.1978. The husband of the petitioner, thereafter, joined respondent-Board afresh, as Mali-cum-Chowkidar, w.e.f. 01.04.1997, on daily wage basis. He continued to serve as such and his services were regularised as on 03.07.2001, as Mali-cum- Chowkidar. He died in harness on 06.08.2008. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner was granted pension, but according to the petitioner, the same is being granted under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, whereas the petitioner is entitled to receive family pension as per option exercised by her late husband. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-6 and submitted that in terms of this Annexure, late husband of the petitioner had opted for the Family Pension-cum-Life Assurance Scheme and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to pension under this particular Scheme. Learned Counsel argued that the entire daily wage service rendered by late husband of the petitioner should also be taken into consideration while determining the period of qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. No other point was urged. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing 3 2026:HHC:4997-DB for the respondent-Board submitted that when the services of the husband of the petitioner were discharged from the Beas-Satluj- Link-Project in the year 1978, whatever was due to the petitioner was paid by the said organisation and benefits of the period spent by late husband of the petitioner in Beas-Satluj-Link-Project, cannot be counted for any purpose as far as this case is concerned. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that engagement of husband of the petitioner in the Board was fresh engagement on daily wage basis. After regularisation of services of deceased-husband of the petitioner and after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner was being paid the pension as per Annexure P-8 and as the husband of the petitioner at the time of his death was covered under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, the pension is being paid under this particular Scheme. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of Annexure P-6, late husband of the petitioner had opted for Family Pension-cum-Life Assurance under the Bhakra Beas Management Board Employees Family Pension Scheme and whatever is due to the petitioner is being paid to her. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no infirmity in the act of the respondents, present petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 7. It is not in dispute that in terms of Annexure P-6, the 4 2026:HHC:4997-DB option which was exercised by the late husband of the petitioner was for the Family Pension-cum-Life Assurance under the Bhakra Beas Management Board Employees Family Pension Scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also made available for perusal of this Court the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in LPA No.1589 of 2011 and connected Appeal, titled Bhakra Beas Management Board and others Versus Hari Chand, decided on 29.11.2011, in terms whereof, respondent-Board has been directed to count the daily wage service rendered by an employee with the Board as qualified service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 8. As far as the service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner in Bhakra-Satluj-Link-Project is concerned, a perusal of the averments made in the petition demonstrates that the petitioner has not claimed any right vis-a-vis the period spent by the late husband of the petitioner with the said Project and otherwise also, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has merit that the period spent by the late husband of the petitioner with the said Project cannot be taken into consideration as far as his service with the present respondent- Board is concerned. 9. However, as far as the issue raised by the petitioner in the present case is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the period late husband of the petitioner served on daily wage basis in the service of the respondents has to be counted for 5 2026:HHC:4997-DB determination of qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, provided the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in LPA No.1589 of 2011 (supra) has attained finality. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for family pension in terms of the option exercised by the husband of the petitioner under Annexure P-6 is concerned, the respondent- Board is directed to ensure that if there is any other Family Pension Scheme in vogue to which the late husband of the petitioner had opted for, other than the Contributory Provident Fund Pension Scheme, then the petitioner be paid family pension in terms of that Scheme as from the due date. However, the amount that already stands paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted against the amount to which the petitioner may be entitled to after counting the daily wage service from 01.04.1997 also till the date of regularisation for determining the qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits till the date of death of the husband of the petitioner. 10. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 28, 2026 (Rishi)