Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, noting that the matter reflected decades of administrative neglect and an ongoing effort by a widow to obtain her lawful pension, directed the Principal Secretary of the Haryana Electricity Department to independently verify her claims and release all benefits found due within two months, ensuring immediate disbursal thereafter. The dispute centred on whether pensionary and related dues were ever paid following the death of her spouse, who served in the State electricity establishment. While the petitioner asserted longstanding non-payment, the authorities maintained partial settlement. The Court ultimately required a conclusive departmental examination to secure all benefits legally owed.

The petitioner, widow of a deceased employee of the Haryana Electricity Department, sought release of pensionary and retiral benefits following her husband’s death in 1974. Her husband had been appointed as a Lineman-II in 1955 and was working as a Sub-Station Officer at the time of his death. After his death, she received an ex-gratia payment, but she asserted that family pension, gratuity, leave salary, and other benefits were not released despite repeated representations to various authorities. Communications from 1987, 1989, and 2006 recorded departmental exchanges regarding service records, GPF account details, EPF membership, and the petitioner’s repeated visits seeking pension. The petitioner later became paralytic and filed RTI applications in 2022, to which the department replied that the matter was very old and records were unavailable.

Also Read: Supreme Court Bars Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts; Issues Guidelines On Seniority In Higher Judicial Service

The respondents contended that all retiral dues—ex-gratia, gratuity, leave salary arrears, and pay differences—had already been paid. They further stated that the deceased was a member of the EPF Scheme since 1962 and opted for the Family Pension Fund in 1971, and therefore was not covered under the GPF/Pension Scheme. They referred to departmental letters stating that the provident fund claim had been settled in 1987 and that all dues had been cleared. The petitioner disputed these assertions and maintained that no pension had been released to her.

The Court observed that the petitioner “has been compelled to run from pillar to post for nearly five decades and ultimately approach this Court in her struggle to secure the grant of family pension and other retiral benefits of her late husband.” It recorded that despite directions in an earlier petition, “the matter was kept pending with the departments merely exchanging correspondence without granting any substantive relief.” The Court stated that the situation “highlights the unfortunate reality that those most in need of justice often find themselves most helpless in securing it.”

The Court further observed that the petitioner was “kept completely uninformed about any decision regarding her claim,” and that the RTI reply of 19.10.2022 stated that “information could not be furnished as the matter was ‘very old’ and no record was available with the office.” It noted that the respondents' written statement “brought a completely new twist to the factual matrix by asserting that the petitioner’s deceased husband was not covered under the GPF/Pension Scheme of the Board.”

The Court stated: “Constitutional Courts bear a sacred obligation to uphold fundamental rights and to ensure that the constitutional vision extends its reach to the most vulnerable sections of society.” It observed that the role of the judiciary includes “safeguarding and providing relief to the voiceless, the marginalized, and those dwelling at the lowest rungs of the social and economic order.”

The Court recorded that constitutional compassion “is grounded in human dignity, empathy, and the upliftment of the oppressed,” and that relief to an aged widow “is not a matter of judicial discretion or benevolence, rather it is a constitutional imperative anchored in the Preamble and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.” It further stated that “whenever Courts fail to protect the weakest, the constitutional promise stands diminished. But when they rise to defend them, the transformative spirit of the Constitution shines in its truest form.”

Also Read: Cyber Fraud Erodes Public Trust In The Digital Economy; Punjab And Haryana High Court Declines Compromise And Dismisses Quashing Plea

The Court observed that “all departmental communications annexed with the present writ petition indicate that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.” It noted that “it is incomprehensible how the deceased could have been allotted a GPF Account Number if he was not covered under the Board’s GPF/Pension Scheme.” It further recorded that the respondents “have consciously chosen to file only short replies rather than a para-wise reply to the writ petition.”

The Court directed that “the Principal Secretary or Administrative incharge, Electricity department, Government of Haryana is directed to personally examine the veracity of the petitioner’s claims within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and to ensure that all lawful benefits due to the petitioner are released to her forthwith. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Khanna, AAG, Haryana; Ms. Sehaj Sandhawalia; Mr. Lokesh Chander Aggarwal,

Case Title: Laxmi Devi v. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:157791
Case Number: CWP-1457-2023 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar