The Supreme Court has directed the Union of India to pay an additional ₹10 lakh to the widow of a General Reserves Engineering Force (GREF) employee who was posthumously awarded the Shaurya Chakra after sacrificing his life while saving fellow workers during road construction along the India-China border.

A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, extended the benefit of extraordinary family pension to the widow from the date of her husband's death in 2000, despite her counsel having earlier restricted the claim for arrears to three years preceding the filing of her writ petition.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Kuldeep Kaur, widow of late Mohan Singh, challenging a January 2026 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Mohan Singh was serving as an Overseer with the GREF and had been posted as In-charge Works for the formation cutting of the Hayliang-Metangliang-Chaglohagom road in Arunachal Pradesh. The 57-km road was described as having significant national and strategic importance for the management of the Sino-Indian border.

On July 10, 2000, while supervising dozer operations at a dangerous, rocky location, Singh noticed a large boulder and debris rolling down from the hilltop towards the construction equipment. He immediately alerted the dozer and compressor operators and instructed them to move to safety.

He then assisted in moving the equipment away from the site to prevent damage and, more importantly, to save the lives of workers operating the machinery. While doing so, he was unable to escape the path of the boulder and was swept away, falling around 70 metres into the valley.

In recognition of his bravery, the Government 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 ordinary family pension. In December 2005, she sought Special Family Pension under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. Her representation was rejected on the ground that she had already received ₹1,84,170 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and therefore was not entitled to the liberalised pensionary award. A subsequent representation was also rejected in 2011.

Kaur subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Single Judge held that her husband's death fell under Category 'C' of the applicable pension scheme and granted extraordinary pension, while directing her to return the compensation amount with 6% interest. The High Court's Division Bench subsequently upheld the categorisation, but limited the arrears to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition, based on an undertaking given on her behalf.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court had already agreed with the High Court that Singh's case was covered by Category 'C'. However, it questioned whether the widow's monetary relief should have been restricted to three years.

The Court observed that Singh had made the "supreme sacrifice" of his life and had been awarded the Shaurya Chakra. It said that the family or widow should not ordinarily be required to approach a court to obtain such relief and that the long period taken by the widow to approach the court should not stand in the way of rendering justice.

During the hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that the authorities had already acted on the High Court's judgment. An amount of ₹14,28,200 had been released to Kaur and her pension had been processed. A further ₹4,12,064 towards arrears of Extraordinary Pension had also been released.

The Attorney General informed the Court that the pension payable from the date of Singh's death, July 12, 2000, up to July 12, 2015, worked out to ₹6,62,268. With 6% interest, the amount would come to approximately ₹8.32 lakh.

The Union also pointed out that Kaur had received ₹1,84,170 under the Workmen's Compensation Act. With interest, this amount was calculated at ₹2,78,092, and according to the Union, ₹4,62,262 would have to be refunded under the applicable regulations. Kaur's counsel, however, informed the Court that she had already returned the principal amount of ₹1,84,170.

Considering the circumstances, the Supreme Court fixed a consolidated amount of ₹10 lakh for the period from July 13, 2000 to July 12, 2015.

The Court clarified that the amount was being fixed in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and "on the peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case.

The bench also recorded its appreciation for the prompt response of the Attorney General and the concerned department.

The Court emphasised that Singh's death occurred while he was performing his duty and that the Government had recognised his sacrifice by conferring the Shaurya Chakra on him the following year.

“We have also not confined the relief to a period of three years from the date prior to the filing of the writ petition on account of the peculiar facts of the present case and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we have extended the benefit from the date of the death notwithstanding, the statement of the appellant's counsel. The supreme sacrifice made by the husband of the appellant was in the performance of duty and in recognition thereafter the Government had also decorated him posthumously with the award of 'Shaurya Chakra' the very next year. 'Shaurya Chakra' is our country's third highest peacetime gallantry award.”, observed the Court. T

“We direct the Union of India to release the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant within four weeks from today i.e., Aug. 5, 2026.”, the Court said.

Importantly, the Court said it was not confining the relief to the three-year period preceding the filing of the writ petition because of the peculiar circumstances of the case and in exercise of its Article 142 powers. It extended the benefit from the date of Singh's death notwithstanding the earlier statement made by the appellant's counsel.

Cause Title: KULDEEP KAUR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 783

Click here to download order

Appearance:

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.