Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 18.02.2026 vs National Hydroelectric Power on 27 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 3083/2019
Reserved on: 18.02.2026
Pronounced on : 27.02.2026
Uploaded on : 27.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Surishta Devi
....Petitioners
Through:- Mr. P.D. Singh, Advocate.
V/s
National Hydroelectric Power
Corporation and ors.
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Verma, Advocate.
\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present
petition, has sought a direction upon the respondents to
consider and release lump sum amount in lieu of appointment
on compassionate basis on account of untimely death of her
husband while on active duty. A further direction
commanding the respondents to process and release the
unpaid amount on account of various insurance policies
including the gratuity, accidental policy as also the balance
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 1 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
amount on account of Employees Provident Fund has also
been sought by the petitioner.
02. As per case of the petitioner, her husband, namely,
Sh. Dev Nandan Singh was employed as a Helper Spl in the
workshop division of Hydroelectric Project Subansiri Lower
Kolaptukar, Dollun, Arunanchal Pradesh. The afore-named
husband of the petitioner is stated to have died while in service
on 29.07.2006. It has been submitted that after the demise of
her husband, the petitioner represented in the Jammu office of
respondent No. 1 for payment of service benefits including
pension, EPF, Gratuity etc but only partial amount of gratuity
and pensionary benefits were released in her favour.
03. It has been further submitted that the respondents
have rejected the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits
in lieu of compassionate appointment on the ground that the
same has been presented by the petitioner belatedly.
According to the petitioner, she was not apprised by the
respondents about the benefits to which she was entitled
though it was the duty of the respondents to do so. The
petitioner is stated to have made a written representation to
respondent No. 1 for release of lump sum amount in lieu of
compassionate appointment but no response was received
from the respondents.
04. It has been submitted that vide letter dated
02.05.2018, respondent No. 2 intimated the petitioner about
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 2 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
the balance unpaid EPF amount whereafter the petitioner
submitted the requisite documents but the respondents have
not released the balance EPF amount till date. It has been
further submitted that the petitioner submitted an RTI request
to respondent No. 1 for providing information with respect to
compassionate appointment, insurance, gratuity etc but no
proper response was received by the petitioner from the
respondents.
05. The respondents have field their reply to the writ
petition in which they have raised preliminary objections to the
maintainability of the writ petition. It has been contended that
the writ petition is barred by delay and laches as the same has
been filed after more than a decade of rejection of petitioner’s
claim for lump sum payment in lieu of compassionate
appointment. It has been submitted that intimation regarding
rejection of claim of the petitioner was conveyed to her vide
communication dated 20.11.2007 and subsequently vide
communication dated 12.03.2008 but the petitioner did not
agitate the claim thereafter till the filing of the present writ
petition.
06. The other preliminary objection that has been
raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of the
writ petition is on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of
this Court. It has been submitted that no part of cause of
action has arisen in favour of the petitioner within the
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 3 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
territorial limits of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ladakh inasmuch as the death of the husband of the deceased
has taken place in Arunachal Pradesh where he was posted at
the relevant time. It has been further contended that rejection
of claim of the petitioner with regard to lump sum assistance
in lieu of compassionate appointment was also made from
Assam and, therefore, no part of cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
07. On merits it has been submitted that after the
death of petitioner’s husband on 29.07.2006, respondent No. 2
informed her vide letter dated 21.11.2006 to file an
application/claim for monetary benefit of lump sum payment
in lieu of compassionate appointment under the Lump-sum
Payment Scheme that was introduced on 24.06.2005.
However, the petitioner failed to lodge her claim within the
stipulated period of one year from the date of death of her
husband, which led to rejection of her belated claim.
08. It has been further submitted that the petitioner
was again informed to submit/apply for claim under
Lump-sum Payment Scheme in terms of communication dated
27.04.2007. However, the petitioner did not respond in time
and instead she applied vide her application dated 21.09.2007.
It has been submitted that respondent No. 2, vide
communications dated 20.11.2007 and 12.03.2008, intimated
the petitioner about rejection of her claim and it was also
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 4 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
intimated to her that the scheme has been discontinued and a
new Social Security Scheme has come into operation w.e.f.,
01.06.2007.
09. It has been submitted that as per Clause 2.5(i) of
the Scheme of lump-sum payment in lieu of compassionate
appointment, an application has to be presented by legal heirs
of the deceased employee within one year of date of death of
the employee but in the instant case, the petitioner applied on
21.09.2007, which is beyond period of one year from the date
of death of her husband and by that time, the scheme had
already been closed and the same was replaced by another
Social Security Scheme w.e.f., 01.06.2007.
10. Regarding group accident insurance claim of the
petitioner, it has been submitted that the same is not
maintainable because her husband died a natural death due
to illness and his death does not qualify as accidental death so
as to entitle her to raise claim under Group Personal Accident
Insurance Policy.
11. It has been submitted that an amount of
Rs. 2,55,357/- has been released in favour of the petitioner as
gratuity, leave encashment, salary, Death Relief Scheme in
terms of communication dated 16.11.2006, a further amount
of Rs. 2,44,350/-stands released in favour of the petitioner as
EPF vide demand draft dated 13.11.2007, a sum of
Rs. 62,000/-was released in favour of the petitioner under
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 5 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
Group Insurance Scheme on 26.06.2007, a further sum of
Rs. 6,513/- was released in favour of the petitioner on account
of ex-gratia/P.L incentive vide communication dated
23.11.2007 and unclaimed/balance EPF of Rs. 1,393/- stands
paid to the petitioner on 05.12.2018. It has been submitted
that nothing is due to be paid to the petitioner on account of
terminal dues arising out of death of her husband. Even
pension case of deceased husband of the petitioner has been
settled by Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Amritsar on
15.04.2009.
12. I have heard learned counsel the parties and
perused record of the case.
13. The first contention that is required to be
considered by this Court is with regard to territorial
jurisdiction. According to learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, no part of cause of action has arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such, the writ petition
before this Court is not maintainable. In support of the said
contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of
Gita Devi and anr Vs. The Deputy General Manager,
Allahabad Bank and ors, 2002 (3) BLJR 1875, judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kusum Ingots and
Alloys Ltd Vs. Union of India and anr, 2004 (6) SCC 254
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 6 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
and judgment of this High Court in the case of Bopinder
Singh Vs. Union of India and anr, 2012 (3) JKJ 33.
14. In all the aforesaid judgments cited at Bar by
learned counsel for the respondents, it has been held that
unless some part of cause of action has arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court where the writ petition
is filed, it cannot be stated that the said Court has jurisdiction
to entertain the petition. If no part of cause of action arises
within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court,
the said court would not entertain the writ petition. Thus,
what is of paramount importance is the situs of cause of
action. If from the analysis of the facts stated in the writ
petition and the material annexed thereto, it comes to the fore
that even a fraction of the cause of action has arisen in favour
of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this court,
the writ petition would be maintainable. The cause of action
has been construed to mean the entire bundle of facts pleaded,
which are necessary to be proved before a petitioner can obtain
a decree or order. It is not that every fact, which has been
pleaded, would constitute cause of action but it is only those
facts, which are necessarily to be proved before a petitioner
can become entitle to the relief prayed in the writ petition.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued
that all the material events in this case have taken place
beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, no part of
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 7 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner within the
territorial limits of this High Court.
16. In the above context, if we have a look at the facts
pleaded in the present petition, it comes to the fore that the
petitioner has sought relief not only with regard to release of
lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment but
she has also sought direction for release of unpaid amount on
account of group accidental insurance as also release of
balance amount on account of EPF. The petitioner has placed
on record documents to show that in response to
communication of the respondents issued on 02.05.2018
seeking information regarding bank details for release of
balance EPF, she has furnished her bank details, which is
located at Samba. The respondents in their reply have
submitted that the balance amount of EPF has been credited
to the account of the petitioner at Samba. The receipt of
amount by the petitioner in her bank account at Samba is an
important fact that would decide whether the petitioner has
received entire EPF dues.
17. Apart from the above, the petitioner has made
entire correspondence with the respondents with regard to her
claim relating to cash in lieu of compassionate appointment
and other claims from her residential address in Samba and
she has also received the communication regarding rejection of
her claim relating to lump sum amount in lieu of
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 8 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
compassionate appointment at Samba. Proof of all these facts
is essential for the petitioner to succeed in the relief prayed in
the petition. Therefore, it cannot be stated that no part of
cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner within the
territorial limits of this Court. The contention of learned
counsel for the respondents in this regard is liable to be
rejected.
18. The other contention that has been raised by
learned counsel for the respondents is that there has been a
long and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in
approaching this Court. It has been contended that the claim
of the petitioner was rejected way back in the year 2008 but
she has approached this Court after a lapse of more than
eleven years.
19. In the above context, it is to be noted that the
petitioner has pleaded in her writ petition that she has been
representing before the respondents with regard to release of
EPF amount and Group Accidental Insurance Policy for the
welfare of family of the employee, who died in harness. While
some part of EPF amount was paid to her pursuant to
furnishing of her bank details to respondents in the year 2018,
the benefits of Group Accidental Insurance Policy have not
been granted to her. Thus, it is not a case where the petitioner
had acquiesced in the action of the respondents but it is a case
where she was continuously pursuing her claims at least
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 9 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
relating to Group Accidental Policy and balance amount of EPF
and in fact the respondents released the balance amount of
EPF in her favour in the year 2018. Thus, it cannot be stated
that the petitioner has approached the court belatedly.
20. Apart from the above, it has to be noted that there
is no limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition to claim a
relief but as a matter of policy, the High Court while exercising
its discretionary power under Section 226 of the Constitution
may, in an appropriate case, refuse to invoke its extraordinary
powers if there is negligence or omission on the part of the
petitioner to assert his right. In refusing to exercise the
jurisdiction on account of delay and laches, the court has to
take into account the circumstances, the prejudice that may
be caused to the opposite party if relief is granted to the
petitioner. Thus, in a case where rights of adverse party may
have been crystallized during the interregnum, the High Court
would refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India on account of delay and
laches. It is not that in every case if an argument against
relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere
delay that the High Court would refuse to exercise its equitable
jurisdiction. Two circumstances are always to be taken into
account; first, the length of delay and second, the nature of
acts done during the interval which might affect either party
and cause balance of justice or injustice in taking the one
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 10 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
course or the other so far as it relates to the remedy.
(Refer Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274).
21. In M.P Ram Mohan Raja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
& ors, (2007) 9 SCC 78, the Supreme court while dealing with
the issue of delay and laches has observed that in the matters
relating to questions of delay and laches, no hard and fast rule
can be laid down and it will depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case. In the case of Dwarka Nath Vs.
Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, D-Ward, Kanpur and
anr AIR 1986 SC 81 the Supreme Court has proceeded to
analyse the scope of Article 226 in the following words:
“Article 226 is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it
ex facie confers a wide power on the high court to reach
injustice wherever it is found. The constitution designedly
used a wide language in describing the nature of the power,
the purposes for which and the person or authority against
whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of
prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of
those writs also is widened by the use of the expression
“nature”, for the said expression does not equate the writs
that can be issued in India with the those in England, but
only draws in analogy from them. That apart, High Courts
can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the
prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the
reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of
this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of
the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution with
that of the English courts to issue prerogative writs is to
introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over
the years in a comparatively small country like England with
a unitary from of Government to a vast country like IndiaWP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 11 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction
defeats the purpose of the article itself. To say this is not to
say that the High Courts can function arbitrarily under this
Article. Some limitations are implicit in the article and others
may be evolved to direct the article through defined
channels.”
22. Again the Supreme Court has, in the case of Air
India Statutory Corporation and Ors Vs. United Labour
Union and Ors (1997) 9 SCC 377, observed that founding
fathers have placed no limitation or fetters on the power of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self-
imposed limitations. It has been observed that the arm of the
Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found.
23. From the foregoing analysis of legal position on the
subject, it is clear that delay and laches is not a complete bar
to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In an appropriate case if the facts and circumstances of a case
warrant so, the High Court would be well within its power to
entertain a belated resort to writ jurisdiction. In a case where
it would be highly inequitable and unjust to throw out a
meritorious case merely on the basis of delay and laches, the
High Court must exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution to come to the rescue of a
litigant.
24. Turning to the facts of the present case, the
petitioner is an illiterate widow coming from an economically
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 12 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
weaker section of the Society. Her husband was working as a
class-IV employee (Helper) at a far off place (Arunanchal
Pradesh) at the time of his death. The petitioner having regard
to her poor economic background may not be having access to
legal advice and other resources that would have enabled her
to approach the court at the earliest. While considering the
case of petitioner, we have to take into account not only her
weaker economic background and illiteracy but also the fact
throwing out her claim on narrow technical grounds of delay
and laches would work extremely harsh against her.
Therefore, despite there being delay on the part of the
petitioner to approach this Court, this is a fit case where this
Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and take up the case of
the petitioner for its consideration on merits.
25. Coming to the merits of the claim of the petitioner,
it has been contended by the respondents that as per the
policy, which was in vogue in the year 2006 when the husband
of the petitioner died, the petitioner had to apply within one
year of death of her husband for claiming cash in lieu of
compassionate appointment but because she failed to do so,
therefore her claim has been rejected.
26. It is also being contended that when the petitioner
applied for compensation in lieu of compassionate
appointment, the scheme had already been closed and it was
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 13 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
replaced by a new scheme. In support of the contention that
the petitioner cannot claim compensation in lieu of
compassionate appointment in view of lapse of the scheme,
learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Indian Bank
and ors Vs. Promila and anr (2020) 2 SCC 729 and the
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr Vs. Parkash Chand,
(2019) 4 SCC 285.
27. If we have a look at the facts emanating from the
record, the petitioner, in her communication addressed to the
respondents which is annexed as Annexure-IV to the writ
petition, has admitted that she has received all terminal
benefits except compassionate appointment/lump-sum
payment, therefore, her claim with regard to Group Accidental
Insurance Policy and EPF is not tenable. So far as her claim
with regard to lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate
appointment is concerned, it appears that the respondents had
informed her about the said scheme in terms of their
communications dated 21.11.2006 and 27.04.2007. It also
appears that vide her communication dated 21.09.2007, the
petitioner had submitted her application for release of
compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. The
claim of the petitioner in this regard was rejected by
respondents vide communication dated 20.11.2007 which was
reiterated vide communication dated 12.03.2008. The ground
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 14 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
projected by the respondents in their aforesaid
communications for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that
she has failed to apply within one year of date of death of her
husband and that the scheme under which she has applied
has ceased to exist and a new Social Security Scheme has
come into operation w.e.f., 01.06.2007.
28. In the above context, it is to be noted that the
husband of the petitioner had died in the year 2006. At the
relevant time, the scheme with regard to lump sum payment in
lieu of compassionate appoint was admittedly in force.
Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to
decline application of the said scheme to the case of the
petitioner on the ground that the said scheme had expired
when the petitioner had applied. The date of death of husband
of the petitioner is the relevant date with reference to which
the scheme has to be applied by the respondents. As on the
date of death of husband of the petitioner, lump sum payment
scheme was admittedly in operation as such, the same has to
be applied to her case.
29. The second ground on which the respondents have
rejected the claim of the petitioner is that she has not applied
within one year of date of death of her husband. In this regard
reliance has been placed upon sub clause (i) of Clause 2.5 of
the scheme which provides that application received beyond
one year from the date of death of the employee will not be
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 15 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
considered. It is true that the petitioner had applied after one
year of death of her husband. To be precise she had applied
on 21.09.2007 whereas her husband had died on 29.07.2006.
However, but it is also a fact that the petitioner was informed
about the scheme by the respondents for the first time vide
their communication dated 21.11.2006. Therefore, the time
for applying under the scheme would run against the
petitioner from the said date and not from the date of death of
her husband.
30. Even otherwise, in terms of Clause 6.1 of the
scheme, Chairman and Managing Director has power to relax
the rules. There cannot be a better case than the case of the
petitioner for the Chairman and Managing Director of the
Respondent-Corporation to exercise its powers under Clause
6.1 of the scheme to relax the rules so far as the same provide
for applying within one year of date of death of the employee in
the case of the petitioner.
31. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore
having regard to precarious condition of the petitioners, it is
not only legally incumbent upon the respondents but it is also
equitable to consider the application of the petitioner for grant
of lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate
appointment under the Scheme which was in vogue at the time
of death of her husband.
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 16 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:610
32. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner
for grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate
appointment in terms of the Scheme that was in vogue at the
time of death of her husband after according relaxation with
reference to the period within which the application was to be
made by the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be
undertaken by the respondents within three months from
today. It is, however, made clear that no interest shall be
payable to the petitioner on the amount that may be assessed
by the respondents under the scheme as she has approached
the court belatedly.
33. Disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
27.02.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
WP(C) No. 3083/2019 Page 17 of 17