125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2213 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 Sarabjit Singh Bajwa .......... Appellant Versus The Additional Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice Department, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Bhawesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant-plaintiff. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-Sarabjit Singh Bajwa is in appeal; first appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”). For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. [2] By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 18.12.2023 & 15.09.2025 passed by both the Courts below, whereby the dismissal of suit for declaration as well as mandatory injunction filed at the instance of plaintiff was affirmed. [3] Briefly, the facts as put forth by the plaintiff are that since the parents of plaintiff had died, besides he was unemployed and unmarried; he was the only legal heir being real brother of deceased-Constable Manjit Singh, Belt No.7/732, 7th BN, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt, who died in harness on 17.04.1978. It was averred that after the death of Constable Manjit Singh, his DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2213 of 2026 (O&M) -2- wife-Sukhwinder Kaur remarried, and furnished statement before the Police Department declaring that she did not wish to claim any pension or any other benefit of her deceased-husband/Manjit Singh. However, despite the said statement, the Department did not release or give any benefit i.e. pension, ex-gratia, gratuity and any other benefits lying with it; neither any compassionate appointment was given to the plaintiff being legal heir of the deceased-Manjit Singh nor to his parents. Further, it was pleaded that the mother of the deceased-Constable Manjit Singh submitted an application dated 14.12.1983 before the Department, to which the Department did not give any response to her. It was further stated that the father of plaintiff and of the deceased-Constable Manjit Singh, namely, Pal Singh died on 09.04.2015 and their mother died on 19.10.2016 without either of them receiving any benefit arising from the service of their deceased-son. Despite repeated requests made to the Department, no action was taken, thereby constraining the plaintiff to file the present suit. [4] A detailed written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents-defendants inter-alia taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was pleaded that late Constable Manjit Singh was survived by his wife and the plaintiff failed to furnish any succession certificate in his favour. It was further averred that according to family pension Scheme as envisaged in Rule 6.17 (3) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, the wife with minor children was Class-I legal heir in death case instead of mother/brother. It was further averred that the Accountant General, Punjab vide its office order No.PEN:VI/M-19/78/79/9287-90, dated 30.03.1984 ordered to the DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2213 of 2026 (O&M) -3- Treasury Officer, Hoshiarpur that Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur wife of late Constable Manjit Singh, holder of PPO No.6056/S/PB, remarried on 12.12.1983; and the necessary action be taken accordingly. The said office also passed orders to the effect that mother of late Manjit Singh was not entitled for family pension and the said order was also conveyed to Smt. Parkash Kaur, mother of the deceased. It was further averred that the application submitted by the plaintiff for recruitment in the Punjab Police under PLI Scheme was considered and rejected by the office of Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh vide memo No.8981/E-3(6) dated 15.12.2022 and plaintiff was also informed regarding the decision vide office memo No.35217/OSI dated 21.12.2022. The remaining averments of the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. [5] Replication to the written statement was filed reiterating the averments made in the plaint and those of written statement were denied. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is the only legal heir of Ct. Manjit Singh No.7/732?OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to all the retiral/death benefits of Ct. Manjit Singh?OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of suit for declaration as well as mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP (4) Whether there is any bar in the maintainability of present suit? OPD (5) Relief. ” [6] The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”), vide its judgment and decree dated DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2213 of 2026 (O&M) -4- 18.12.2023, dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff. [7] Aggrieved against the same, the appellant-plaintiff filed the first appeal, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. [8] Impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that since the parents of the appellant had died and thereafter, upon demise of his real brother Ct. Manjit Singh, he being the only legal heir, was entitled to pension, ex-gratia, gratuity and all other pensionary benefits of his deceased- brother. Learned counsel further argues that as per Rule 6.17 (3) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, in cases where the widow, though initially entitled, subsequently becomes ineligible due to remarriage and no eligible child survives, the dependent parents were to be considered for grant of family pension, however, the claim of the mother of the appellant was ignored by the respondents. No other argument has been raised. [9] After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. [10] It is not disputed that on the application of Smt. Parkash Kaur, mother of the deceased-Constable Manjit Singh, family pension earlier sanctioned in favour of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur (wife of the deceased) was stopped upon her remarriage as per the Punjab Civil Service Rules. To prove his claim, the appellant-plaintiff himself appeared into the witness box as DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2213 of 2026 (O&M) -5- PW-2. In cross-examination, the appellant-plaintiff admitted that relationship of brother does not fall under the purview of family’s pension. He further admitted that he had not given any succession certificate and his application for recruitment in Punjab Police under PLI Scheme was rejected and he was informed accordingly. Further, as per Family Pension Scheme as per Rule 6.17(3) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, wife and minor children are classified as Class-I legal heirs in death case, whereas mother and brother are not included therein. Besides it, as per Rule 6.16(B) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, brother does not fall under the definition of “family”. Therefore, no pension or other benefits were released to the mother and brother of the deceased, particularly considering that even succession certificate of the deceased was granted in favour of his widow Sukhwinder Kaur and mother Parkash Kaur; not in favour of appellant-plaintiff. [11] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by both the Courts below, there being no misreading or any misinterpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. [12] Since the main appeal itself has been decided/dismissed, no orders are required to be passed in the pending application(s) including condonation of delay as well as additional evidence. July 01, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document