The Supreme Courtroom has directed the Union of India to pay a further ₹10 lakh to the widow of a Normal Reserves Engineering Drive (GREF) worker who was posthumously awarded the Shaurya Chakra after sacrificing his life whereas saving fellow staff throughout highway building alongside the India-China border.
A bench of Justice Okay.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, exercising its powers beneath Article 142 of the Structure, prolonged the advantage of extraordinary household pension to the widow from the date of her husband’s demise in 2000, regardless of her counsel having earlier restricted the declare for arrears to a few years previous the submitting of her writ petition.
The Courtroom was listening to an attraction filed by Kuldeep Kaur, widow of late Mohan Singh, difficult a January 2026 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom.
Mohan Singh was serving as an Overseer with the GREF and had been posted as In-charge Works for the formation chopping of the Hayliang-Metangliang-Chaglohagom highway in Arunachal Pradesh. The 57-km highway was described as having important nationwide and strategic significance for the administration of the Sino-Indian border.
On July 10, 2000, whereas supervising dozer operations at a harmful, rocky location, Singh seen a big boulder and particles rolling down from the hilltop in direction of the development tools. He instantly alerted the dozer and compressor operators and instructed them to maneuver to security.
He then assisted in shifting the tools away from the positioning to forestall harm and, extra importantly, to save lots of the lives of staff working the equipment. Whereas doing so, he was unable to flee the trail of the boulder and was swept away, falling round 70 metres into the valley.
In recognition of his bravery, the Authorities posthumously conferred the Shaurya Chakra on Singh on October 19, 2001. The award is India’s third-highest peacetime gallantry award.
Kuldeep Kaur had initially been receiving extraordinary household pension. In December 2005, she sought Particular Household Pension beneath the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Guidelines, 1939. Her illustration was rejected on the bottom that she had already acquired ₹1,84,170 beneath the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and due to this fact was not entitled to the liberalised pensionary award. A subsequent illustration was additionally rejected in 2011.
Kaur subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom. A Single Decide held that her husband’s demise fell beneath Class ‘C’ of the relevant pension scheme and granted extraordinary pension, whereas directing her to return the compensation quantity with 6% curiosity. The Excessive Courtroom’s Division Bench subsequently upheld the categorisation, however restricted the arrears to a few years previous the submitting of the writ petition, based mostly on an endeavor given on her behalf.
When the matter reached the Supreme Courtroom, the Courtroom had already agreed with the Excessive Courtroom that Singh’s case was lined by Class ‘C’. Nonetheless, it questioned whether or not the widow’s financial aid ought to have been restricted to a few years.
The Courtroom noticed that Singh had made the “supreme sacrifice” of his life and had been awarded the Shaurya Chakra. It stated that the household or widow mustn’t ordinarily be required to strategy a courtroom to acquire such aid and that the lengthy interval taken by the widow to strategy the courtroom mustn’t stand in the best way of rendering justice.
In the course of the listening to, Lawyer Normal R. Venkataramani knowledgeable the Courtroom that the authorities had already acted on the Excessive Courtroom’s judgment. An quantity of ₹14,28,200 had been launched to Kaur and her pension had been processed. An extra ₹4,12,064 in direction of arrears of Extraordinary Pension had additionally been launched.
The Lawyer Normal knowledgeable the Courtroom that the pension payable from the date of Singh’s demise, July 12, 2000, as much as July 12, 2015, labored out to ₹6,62,268. With 6% curiosity, the quantity would come to roughly ₹8.32 lakh.
The Union additionally identified that Kaur had acquired ₹1,84,170 beneath the Workmen’s Compensation Act. With curiosity, this quantity was calculated at ₹2,78,092, and in accordance with the Union, ₹4,62,262 must be refunded beneath the relevant laws. Kaur’s counsel, nevertheless, knowledgeable the Courtroom that she had already returned the principal quantity of ₹1,84,170.
Contemplating the circumstances, the Supreme Courtroom fastened a consolidated quantity of ₹10 lakh for the interval from July 13, 2000 to July 12, 2015.
The Courtroom clarified that the quantity was being fastened in train of its powers beneath Article 142 of the Structure and “on the peculiar info and circumstances” of the case.
The bench additionally recorded its appreciation for the immediate response of the Lawyer Normal and the involved division.
The Courtroom emphasised that Singh’s demise occurred whereas he was performing his responsibility and that the Authorities had recognised his sacrifice by conferring the Shaurya Chakra on him the next yr.
“Now we have additionally not confined the aid to a interval of three years from the date previous to the submitting of the writ petition on account of the peculiar info of the current case and in train of powers beneath Article 142 of the Structure of India, now we have prolonged the profit from the date of the demise however, the assertion of the appellant’s counsel. The supreme sacrifice made by the husband of the appellant was within the efficiency of responsibility and in recognition thereafter the Authorities had additionally embellished him posthumously with the award of ‘Shaurya Chakra’ the very subsequent yr. ‘Shaurya Chakra’ is our nation’s third highest peacetime gallantry award.”, noticed the Courtroom. T
“We direct the Union of India to launch the quantity of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant inside 4 weeks from right this moment i.e., Aug. 5, 2026.”, the Courtroom stated.
Importantly, the Courtroom stated it was not confining the aid to the three-year interval previous the submitting of the writ petition due to the peculiar circumstances of the case and in train of its Article 142 powers. It prolonged the profit from the date of Singh’s demise however the sooner assertion made by the appellant’s counsel.
Trigger Title: KULDEEP KAUR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 783
Look:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Noor Shergill, Adv. Ms. Anuja Pethia, AOR Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Adv. Mr. Mansangat Singh Kohli, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Nahata, Adv. Mr. Aashish Paul, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.Venkataramani, AG Mr. Shreekant N.Terdal, AOR Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey,Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal,Adv. Ms. Ameya Vikram Thanvi,Adv. Mr. Kartikey Agarwal,Adv. Ms. Yamika Khanna,Adv. Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee,Adv.
