CWP-24855 IN TH 232 Nirmal Kaur State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution certiorari for the family pe family pensi Further prayi 1 855-2024 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP-24 Date of Kaur VERSUS Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for t Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocat **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been fil tution of India praying seeking issua for quashing the order dated 24.01 ily pension of the petitioner has bee pension and 50% fixed medical all r praying for issuance of a writ in the NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 24855-2024 ate of Decision: February 24, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ...Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner. unjab. vocate for respondents No.2 to 5. een filed under Article 226/227 of the issuance of a writ in the nature of 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) whereby as been allowed on the basis of 50% cal allowance alleging two families. in the nature of mandamus directing itioner ondents of the ure of ereby f 50% ilies. ecting PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24855 respondent N benefits in fa deceased Am 2. petitioner is unfortunately employee wa on 26.12.200 marriage wit that, despite death of the pension, as issued by th employee had 3. Damanpreet were born ou age of majori major at the 2009. It is th dependents s further subm 17.07.2024 u 2 855-2024 dent No.2 to release the full family s in favour of the petitioner as she is t ed Amarjit Singh. Learned counsel for the petition ner is the legally wedded widow of nately expired on 26.11.2019. It is ee was earlier married to Smt. Param .12.2008. Thereafter, late Sh. Amarj ge with the present petitioner on 16.0 espite the petitioner being the sole s f the deceased employee, she is bein n, as is discernible from order date by the respondent-Corporation, on ee had two families. Learned counsel further submi preet Kaur (daughter), Manmohan S orn out of the first wedlock. Howeve majority prior to the demise of the dec at the time of the petitioner’s marriag It is thus argued that none of them fall ents so as to claim family pension u submitted that the petitioner had 024 upon the respondents, which fail amily pension along with pensonary he is the only legally wedded wife of etitioner, inter alia, contends that the ow of late Sh. Amarjit Singh, who . It is submitted that the deceased Paramjit Kaur, who predeceased him Amarjit Singh solemnized a lawful n 16.03.2009. It is further contended sole surviving spouse at the time of is being paid only 50% of the family r dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) , on the premise that the deceased submits that three children, namely han Singh and Avtar Singh (sons), owever, all of them had attained the the deceased employee and were even arriage with the deceased in the year em fall within the category of eligible sion under the applicable rules. It is r had served a legal notice dated ch failed to evoke any response. The onary ife of at the , who eased d him lawful ended me of family 2) eased amely sons), ed the e even e year ligible . It is dated e. The PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24855 petitioner, be no independe family pensio places relian State of Punj 4. that the imp pension was terms of Rul the deceased Assistant Jun lifetime. The shares. Howe the death of t wedlock had has been pref benefits after 5. record, this C 50% of the f second wife first wife of t which the de 3 855-2024 ner, being wholly dependent upon the ependent source of income, seeks a d pension in her favour. In support reliance upon the judgment of a Di Punjab v. Harpal Kaur, LPA No. 14 Per contra, learned counsel for e impugned order has been rightly p n was restricted to 50% in view of the of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Serv ceased employee retired from the nt Junior Engineer and had contrac e. Therefore, the family pension was However, it is fairly conceded that th th of the deceased employee and that t k had already attained majority. It is en preferred by any of the said children s after the demise of Sh. Amarjit Singh Having heard learned counsel f , this Court finds that the action of t f the family pension solely on the g wife cannot be sustained in law. It i ife of the deceased employee expired the deceased lawfully married the pet on the deceased employee and having ks a direction for release of the full port of submissions, learned counsel f a Division Bench of this Court in o. 1434 of 2014. el for respondents No.2 to 5 submits htly passed inasmuch as the family of the existence of two marriages, in il Services Rules. It is submitted that the respondent-Corporation as an ontracted two marriages during his n was initially apportioned in equal that the first wife had expired prior to d that the children born out of the first . It is also not disputed that no claim hildren with respect to the pensionary t Singh on 26.11.2019. unsel for the parties and perused the n of the respondents in withholding the ground that the petitioner is the w. It is an admitted position that the pired in the year 2008, subsequent to he petitioner. The children born from aving e full unsel urt in bmits amily es, in d that as an g his equal rior to e first claim ionary ed the olding is the at the ent to from PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24855 the first marr and were no death. The p and eligible d 6. finds mention the responde demonstrate forfeit a porti claimant. 7. Bench of thi that the State which may th law. It was portion of the ineligible. Th devolves in a 1956. Simila in Jaspal Ka that once ther must be relea 4 855-2024 st marriage had attained majority eve ere not dependent upon the deceased The petitioner, therefore, remained th gible dependent at the time of demise o It is further borne out from the r ention in the nomination papers main spondents-Corporation. The respond strate any statutory provision which a portion of the family pension in the The controversy involved is no of this Court in Harpal Kaur’s case e State is under an obligation to disbur may thereafter be shared amongst the was further held that the State can of the pension on the ground that a p ble. The right to family pension partak es in accordance with the provisions Similar view has been reiterated by a l Kaur v. State of Punjab 2021(2) ce there remains only one eligible lega e released in his or her favour. ty even prior to the second marriage ceased employee at the time of his ined the only legally wedded spouse mise of the deceased employee. the record that the petitioner’s name rs maintained in the service record of espondents have not been able to which authorizes them to retain or in the absence of a competing eligible is no longer res integra. A Division case (supra) has categorically held disburse 100% of the family pension, gst the legal heirs in accordance with ate cannot appropriate or retain any hat a particular legal heir has become partakes the character of property and isions of the Hindu Succession Act, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court 1(2) SCT 748, wherein it was held le legal heir, the entire family pension rriage of his pouse name ord of le to ain or ligible vision y held nsion, e with n any come ty and Act, Court s held nsion PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24855 8. from the serv which devolv The role of disbursement law to withho lawful claima correspondin eligible heir( object of the security to th 9. position of la (Annexure P release the retiral/pensio the petitioner certified copy 10. payment of a the date the a 5 855-2024 Family pension is not a bounty e service rendered by the deceased em devolves upon the legal heirs in acc le of the State is purely ministeria ement of the admissible pensionary withhold, appropriate, or retain any po claimant. If one among multiple benef onding share does not revert to the Sta e heir(s). Any interpretation to the c of the family pension scheme, which i y to the dependents of a deceased emp Accordingly, in view of the afor n of law, the present writ petition is al ure P-2) is quashed and set aside. T the entire arrears of family pen pensionary benefits accrued on accou itioner, within a period of three mont d copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be ent nt of arrears @ 6% per annum, to be c e the amount became due, till the date bounty but a statutory right flowing sed employee. It constitutes an estate in accordance with succession laws. isterial in nature namely, to ensure onary benefits. It has no authority in any portion thereof in the absence of a e beneficiaries becomes ineligible, the the State but accrues to the remaining the contrary would defeat the very hich is to provide social and financial d employee. e aforesaid discussion and the settled n is allowed and the order 24.01.2020 . The respondents are directed to y pension and other consequential account of late Sh. Amarjit Singh to months from the date of receipt of a be entitled to interest on the delayed o be computed from two months after e date of actual realization. owing estate laws. re rity in e of a le, the aining very ancial ettled .2020 ted to ential gh to t of a elayed s after PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24855 11. disposed of in February 24 P.C 6 855-2024 Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of in view of the main petition havin 24, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : pplication(s), if any, shall also stand n having been allowed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document