‘Adopted son has the same rights’: Punjab and Haryana HC ends 19-year dispute, directs PSEB to release pension with interest
Written by: Manraj Grewal Sharma
3 min readChandigarhDec 23, 2025 04:26 PM IST
The appeal arose from a civil suit decreed in 2005 in favour of Jagan Nath, who claimed the family pension and other service benefits of Jokhu Ram. (File photo)
Make us preferred source on Google
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday dismissed a regular second appeal filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board and others, ending a legal dispute that began in 2006 and directing the authorities to release all pensionary and retiral benefits to a deceased PSEB employee’s adopted son, along with interest at 9 per cent per annum.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, observing that the prolonged litigation had unjustly deprived Jagan Nath of his legitimate dues for nearly two decades.
The appeal arose from a civil suit decreed in 2005 in favour of Jagan Nath, who claimed the family pension and other service benefits of Jokhu Ram, who had served with the PSEB as a watchman for about 30 years and died unmarried. Jagan Nath asserted that he was validly adopted by Jokhu Ram in 1990 through a registered adoption deed, with the consent of his biological parents.
Rejecting the PSEB’s challenge to the adoption, the high court noted that the adoption deed dated December 26, 1990, stood duly proved, along with the endorsement made the following day. The court recorded that both biological parents had appeared as witnesses and supported the adoption, while documentary evidence showed that Jokhu Ram had treated Jagan Nath as his son and nominee.
Dealing with the argument that the adoption was invalid because the adoptee was allegedly over 15 years of age, the court held that the record clearly showed otherwise. “At page No. 2 of the adoption deed, the age of the respondent is referred to as about 14 years of age,” the judgment noted, adding that the testimony of the biological parents corroborated this position.
The court also took note of the PSEB’s conduct, pointing out that unpaid salary and other amounts had already been released to Jagan Nath on the basis that he was the son and legal heir of the deceased employee.
In a pointed observation on the delay, Justice Sharma recorded that the second appeal, filed in 2006, had been decided “after almost 19 years, because of which the respondent is deprived of his right to benefits”. The court said justice demanded that the respondent should not be forced into further execution proceedings.
Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, the high court directed the appellants to disburse all benefits due to Jagan Nath, including the family pension and other retirement dues, along with interest at 9 per cent per annum, within two months. The parties were left to bear their own costs.