2026:HHC:21909 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6362 of 2020 Decided on: 03.06.2026 Uploaded on: 04.06.2026 Krishna Devi alias Usha Devi ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) CMP No.13046 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and name of deceased- respondent No.6 is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. 2. Registry is directed to carry out necessary 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 corrections in the memo of parties. 3. The application is accordingly disposed of. CWP No.6362 of 2020 4. The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “i. That the respondent No.1 to 4 may be directed to sanction and pay the family pension of deceased Narinder Kumar in the name of petitioner(Krishna Devi alias Usha Rani) and her unmarried daughter namely Heena from the due date alongwith arrear and interest. Further the respondent No.1 to 4 directed to pay the accumulated financial/retiral benefits in the name of petitioner and her daughter from the due date alongwith arrear and interest there on after quashing and setting aside the annexure P/14. Further the respondents may be directed to recover entire amount from the respondent no.6 wrongly paid to her alongwith interest. ii. That appropriate direction may be passed for the recovery of the due amount of arrear with interest for which petitioner and her daughter are legally entitled. iii. That respondent No.1 may be directed to take strict and exemplary action against the erring officers for delaying the matter and causing the irreparable loss, inconvenience and harassment to the petitioner and her unmarried daughter. Further the respondent No.1 to 4 may also be directed to compensate the petitioner and her daughter for the sufferings caused to them due to negligence of concerned authorities/officials.” 5. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that 3 late Sh. Narinder Kumar, who was serving as Sub inspector/MT with the respondents was earlier married to one Smt. Gitaben Champaklal Modi. However, due to differences between late Sh. Narinder Kumar and Smt. Gitaben Champaklal Modi, the marriage could not subsist and ultimately they snapped marital ties as per the deed of divorce dated 12.04.1989 and in sequel to the said deed of divorce, the marital ties between them were dissolved w.e.f. 16.06.1989, which finds mention in office order dated 25.10.1989, issued by respondent No.4 (Annexure P-2). 6. Later on, late Sh. Narinder Kumar solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 03.12.1989 and out of the said wedlock, a daughter namely, Ms. Heena was born on 07.12.1990. 7. Since, late Sh. Narinder Kumar was not maintaining the petitioner and his daughter, born out of the wedlock, both of them filed an application under Section 125 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code(in short “Cr.P.C.”) against late Sh. Narinder Kumar and the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ludhiana, Punjab, vide order dated 05.08.2003, allowed the said application and late Sh. Narinder Kumar was ordered to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/- per month each to the petitioner and his daughter. Since his daughter was minor, the petitioner was held entitled to receive the maintenance, till her marriage. 8. Due to differences between the petitioner and late Sh. Narinder Kumar, the latter did not enter the names of the petitioner and his daughter in his service record, though the petitioner had requested the respondents to make entry of their names in the service book. The request made by the petitioner was turned down since she could not produce the marriage certificate/other valid documents of marriage. 9. It is borne out from the record that late Sh. Narinder Kumar was directed to submit an explanation as to 5 why he had failed to enter the names of the petitioner and his daughter in the service book, but he did not submit any reply. He was even issued a show cause notice dated 18.05.2013 (Annexure R-12). As per show cause notice, various memos were issued to late Sh. Narinder Kumar, but he did not furnish any reply to the same inasmuch as neither he submitted supporting documents of family making entry in the service book nor helped his family. He was directed to submit reply and in case he fails to do so within the stipulated period, 50% pay and allowances under the provision of Rule- 181 would be deducted from his salary for the month of May 2013 and credited in the bank account of the petitioner and non-submission of reply will be treated as an act of indiscipline, violation of good order and claim of Smt. Krishana Devi and Miss Heena would be treated as correct. Thereafter, various correspondences took place. Since no reply was received from late Sh. Narinder Kumar, 50% of pay 6 and allowances for the month of May, 2013 was deducted and remitted in the account of the petitioner. However, later on the same was stopped. 10. Late Sh. Narinder Kumar thereafter took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and his pension case was processed with details of family (father and mother) as per nomination available and a PPO was issued vide No.248761400600 dated 07.03.2014, (Annexure R-25). 11. After the death of late Sh. Narinder Kumar on 20.03.2017, respondent No.6, mother-in-law of the petitioner started drawing pension in view of the fact that she was made a nominee in the service book. 12. The claim of the petitioner for grant of pension in her favour came to be rejected by respondent No.4, vide communication dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure P-14) on the ground that her name and name of her daughter was not found in the service book of late Sh. Narinder Kumar. Further, 7 in the year 2013, late Sh. Narinder Kumar also submitted nomination details of his father Sh. Nanak Chand Sharma & mother Smt. Raj Rani Sharma (respondent No.6). Since she is not legal wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar, the pension has been released in favour of late Sh. Narinder Kumar. 13. The petitioner has been denied pension only on the ground that her name is not entered in service book of late Sh.Narinder Kumar and she is not legal wife of late Sh.Narinder Kumar. As per the document placed on record as Annexure P-5, issued by Under Secretary (Pers-III), Ministry of Home Affairs, petitioner has been found to be legally wedded wife of late Sh.Narinder Kumar and daughter Miss Heena has been born out of wedlock. Due to this reason, the petitioner and daughter Miss Heena were paid 50% salary of late Sh.Narinder Kumar for the month of May,2013. The petitioner has been denied the pension only on the ground that she was not entered as wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar in his 8 service book and further she is not the legal wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar. 14. It is worth to mention here that late Sh. Narinder Kumar had died on 20.03.2017 and after his death, the pension was granted in favour of mother of late Sh. Narinder Kumar, who was arrayed as respondent No.6. Now late Smt. Raj Rani, has also died on 12.04.2024 and now only the petitioner and her daughter are left, who are entitled to get the pension. 15. It has been averred in the petition that the respondents have wrongly rejected her claim for the purpose of grant of pension. The plea taken by respondent No.4 in the order of rejection is unfounded and thus the petitioner is entitled to the pension from the due date i.e. immediately after the death of late Sh. Narinder Kumar. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was the legally wedded wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar, and further out of the wedlock, a 9 child namely Miss Heena was born and thus the decision taken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal and bad in law. 16. Respondents No.1 and 4 filed reply to the petition and supported the decision taken by them while rejecting the claim. The sum and substance of the entire reply is that since the name of the petitioner and her daughter has not been incorporated in the service record of late Sh. Narinder Kumar, they are not entitled to the pension. 17. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 4 and controverted the averments made therein. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 19. It is not in dispute that late Sh. Narinder Kumar had got dissolved his marriage with his first wife on 16.06.1989, which is evident from the office order dated 10 25.10.1989 (Annexure P-2) issued by one of the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had got married to late Sh. Narinder Kumar and furthermore out of the wedlock, a daughter namely Miss Heena was born. The dispute is only with regard to the fact that after the marriage of late Sh. Narinder Kumar with the petitioner, the name of petitioner and her daughter was not entered in his service book and it was due to the fact that after the marriage between the petitioner and late Sh. Narinder Kumar, dispute arose and for seeking financial help, the petitioner and daughter Miss Heena had even instituted an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 05.08.2003 and the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, Punjab, had awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/- each per month to the petitioner and her daughter. Even the document issued by the Under Secretary (Pers-III) dated 04.11.2013 (Annexure P- 5) clearly shows that the respondent No.4 after verification 11 had found that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar and out of the wedlock Miss Heena was born. Even during the lifetime of late Sh. Narinder Kumar, the respondents had issued various show cause notices to him, asking that why he had not got the name of the petitioner and her daughter entered in the service book and even a warning was given that 50% of salary and allowances will be deducted from his salary, but late Sh. Narinder Kumar did not enter the name of the petitioner and their daughter during his lifetime and has left to the heavenly abode on 20.03.2017. it is also admitted that the petitioner and her daughter were paid 50% salary of late Sh. Narinder Kumar for the month of May, 2013. 20. After the death of late Sh. Narinder Kumar, his mother, who was entered in the service book as nominee of the deceased, was in receipt of the pension, who has now died on 12.04.2024. Once, it is evident from a perusal of the 12 documents placed on record that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar after the decree of divorce obtained by him from his first wife, which fact finds mention even in the order dated 25.10.1989 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of pension, especially after the demise of her mother-in-law on 12.04.2024. Earlier thereto, the respondents had disbursed the pension in favour of mother of late Sh. Narinder Kumar, who was entered as nominee in his service book and since she has left to heavenly abode on 12.04.2024, there is no impediment to order to release the pension in favour of the petitioner, especially when it is proved on record that she was the legally wedded wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar and out of the wed lock, a daughter was born. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions has held that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock, where the partners have lived together for a long 13 spell as husband and wife. Reference in this regard is made to Badri Prasad versus Dy. Director of Consolidation and others., (1978) 3 SCC 527. 22. Again in S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others, (1994) 1 SCC 460, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a man and woman live together for long years as husband and wife, then a presumption arises in law of legality of marriage existing between the two, but the said presumption is rebuttable. 23. The aforesaid judgments have recently been followed in Shiramabai vs. Captain, Record Officer for O.I.C Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar State and Another, (2024) 16 SCC 773. 24. In the present case, the petitioner and late Sh. Narinder Kumar had lived together and out of the wedlock, a daughter has been born. When late Sh. Narinder Kumar was not maintaining the petitioner and his daughter, they had 14 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed and this shows that the marriage had taken place. 25. Not only this, even other documents placed on record clearly show that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar and thus she is entitled to pension on account of the services rendered by her husband with the respondents and the rejection of her claim on the ground that her name is not entered in the service record and she is not legal wife of late Sh. Narinder Kumar is unsustainable in law. 26. The petitioner cannot be simply denied the benefit of pension only on account of the fact that her name was not found mentioned in the service book, once the respondents themselves have admitted in various documents which have been placed on record, coupled with the fact that even respondent No.4 has issued a show cause notice to late Sh. Narinder Kumar to the effect that in case he does not reply 15 that why he did not get the name of the petitioner, who is his legally wedded wife and that of her daughter entered in the service book, 50% of his pay and allowances will be deducted from his salary, there is no justification to deny the pension to the petitioner. 27. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure P-14) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pay the pension to the petitioner w.e.f. May 2024 since the mother-in-law of the petitioner was in receipt of the family pension after the death of late Sh. Narinder Kumar till her death on 12.04.2024. Since, the petitioner is fighting for her rights since long, the respondents are directed to pay the pension to the petitioner from the month of July 2026 onwards continuously and the arrears on account of the pension w.e.f. May, 2024 shall be defrayed in her favour within a period of 3 months from today. In case, the respondents do not pay the arrears in 16 favour of the petitioner within a period of 3 months from today, the respondents shall pay interest thereon @6% per annum from today till actual payment in favour of the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 28. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 03 rd June, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge