Shreya Gupta
On March 7, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court expressed strong disappointment over the delay in releasing the pension and other retiral dues to Pritam Kaur, the wife of former civil judge Gurnam Singh Sewak, who passed away in 2021.
The Division-Bench comprising of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh criticized the State of Punjab and the High Court on its administrative side for the delay, imposing costs of ₹25,000 on the respondents. The Court directed that the amount be paid to the petitioner within 60 days, failing which the case would be put up for execution before an appropriate Bench. The Court further left the decision of apportioning the cost and responsibility among the respondents to them.
The Court emphasized that pensionary benefits and retiral claims are akin to property and cannot be deprived without the authority of law as stipulated under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It further held that the denial of pension to Sewak and his widow from March 2018 to March 2024 was without legal authority and a blatant disregard for the law. The Bench observed that neither the judicial officer nor his family was treated with dignity and grace, asserting that pensionary benefits, once due and admissible, must be released promptly, failing which they are liable to be paid with interest and costs.
The case was initiated through a writ petition filed by Pritam Kaur, widow of Gurnam Singh Sewak, who had served as a Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Magistrate. Sewak began his career as an Upper Division Clerk in the Punjab Accountant General’s office in 1964 and later cleared the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) examination in 1973. He sought voluntary retirement in 1996, but his request was denied due to a pending departmental enquiry, which also led to his suspension. After his superannuation in 1999, Sewak was dismissed from service in 2001. However, in 2018, the High Court quashed the chargesheet, enquiry report, and subsequent action against him, permitting fresh action in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in 2019 by dismissing the High Court’s appeal. Despite this, due to the continued pendency of the enquiry, his pensionary benefits were withheld. Sewak passed away in 2021 while the enquiry remained unresolved.
In 2022, Pritam Kaur approached the Court seeking the release of pension and arrears. However, the High Court on the administrative side insisted on recovering ₹1,87,411 from Sewak, which he had received as a subsistence allowance during his suspension. Due to this, neither the provisional pension nor the family pension was finalized and paid to the petitioner. It was only in 2023 that the Vigilance Disciplinary Committee decided to drop the chargesheets against Sewak and recommended that his suspension period be treated as leave due, ensuring the release of resultant service benefits to his family. Subsequently, the High Court administration informed the Accountant General of Punjab, leading to the eventual sanctioning of pension and gratuity to Sewak’s family in 2024.
The Court, in its judgment dated March 7, questioned the withholding of Sewak’s pension after 2018, when the penalty of dismissal was set aside. It noted that the respondents failed to explain why the family pension was sanctioned and released as late as January-February 2024 when it had become due immediately after Sewak’s death on October 2, 2021. Furthermore, the Bench challenged the decision of the High Court’s administrative side to insist on recovering the subsistence allowance paid to Sewak during his suspension from August 1996 to June 1999. The Court found this action incomprehensible, especially after the Vigilance Disciplinary Committee decided to drop the proceedings in accordance with the Division Bench’s liberty. Citing Rule 7.3(2) & (3) and Rule 7.3.A(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Court emphasized that in cases where dismissal is set aside by a court and no further enquiry is pursued, the suspension period must be regularized, preventing any recovery of subsistence allowance.
The Court also acknowledged that Sewak, who was suffering from various ailments, passed away in 2021 without receiving either provisional or regular pension. Consequently, it directed the State to pay his widow interest on the arrears of regular pension and family pension. Additionally, the Court ordered that she be paid interest on the gratuity amount as well. The Bench further imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the respondents, including the State and the High Court, to be paid to the widow.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Abhishek Masih, and Gaurav Jagota. The State of Punjab was represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok, while Advocate Dhiraj Chawla appeared for the High Court.
Case Title: Pritam Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No.27273 of 2022 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com