Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16883 (HP)

Urmila Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-30

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondent department may be directed to release the beneftt of family pension to the petitioner from the date of death of deceased husband with all consequential beneftts. 2. That respondent department be directed to release the arrear of pension to the petitioner with interest @18% per annum.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is the second wife of late Shri Surat Ram. According to the petitioner, her marriage took place with late Shri Surat Ram on 03.04.1987, during the subsistence of the marriage of Shri Sugat Ram with Smt. Reshmu Devi. Smt. Reshmu Devi is stated to have died on 18.11.2015. As per the petitioner, there was no child born out of the wedlock between late Shri Surat Ram and Smt. Reshmu Devi. However, there are two children born out of the wedlock of the marriage of the petitioner with Shri Surat Ram, who are both major and married. Shri Surat Ram is stated to have died on 06.04.2021. The case of the petitioner for the grant of family pension has been rejected vide Annexure P-12, dated 18.02.2022, on the ground that she is not the first wife of late Shri Surat Ram and had contacted marriage with him during the subsistence of his first marriage, hence this petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the widow of late employee of the respondent-Department and is entitled to family pension, as she is eligible to receive the same. 4. On the other hand, as observed hereinabove, the contention of the State is that because the petitioner solemnised marriage with Shri Surat Ram during the subsistence of the first wife, therefore, she is not entitled for pension. 5. It is a matter of record that the petitioner happens to be the second wife of late Shri Surat Ram, as has been observed by me hereinabove also. It is also a matter of record that the first wife of Shri Surat Ram pre-deceased him. She died in the year 2015, whereas Shri Surat Ram passed away in the year 2021. It is also a matter of record that the first wife of Shri Surat Ram pre-deceased him. She died in the year 2015, whereas Shri Surat Ram passed away in the year 2021. Obviously, herein it is not the case of the respondents that after the death of Shri Surat Ram, family pension was paid to his first wife and after the death of his first wife, now another lady is claiming the same. Here, the family pension has not been paid to anyone after the death of Shri Surat Ram. It is also not in dispute that whereas, no child was born out of the wedlock between Shri Surat Ram and his first wife Smt. Reshmu Devi, there are two major children born out of the marriage of the petitioner with late Shri Surat Ram, who are above twenty five years of age, and thus, not entitled to receive family pension. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Shiramabai and others Versus The Captain Record Officer and another , (Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 2023), decided on 18.08.2023, has been pleased to hold under similar circumstances that in case a man and women cohabited continuously for long term, then one can draw a presumption in favour of a valid marriage. Hon’ble Apex Court also held that though this presumption is rebuttable, but heavy onus is placed on the one who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin to prove that no marriage had indeed taken place. 7. In the present case, there is none except the petitioner who is claiming the family pension after the death of Shri Surat Ram. Though she is not the first wife of Shri Surat Ram, but the first wife of Shri Surat Ram, pre-deceased Shri Surat Ram, issue-less, and, therefore, in case family pension is ordered to be granted in favour of the present petitioner, no prejudice is going to be caused to anyone. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of denying family pension to the petitioner is held to be bad in law. Annexure P-12, dated 18.02.2022, is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to release family pension to the petitioner forthwith. Arrears as are due to the petitioner, be paid within three months from today and if that is done, no interest shall be paid thereupon. Annexure P-12, dated 18.02.2022, is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to release family pension to the petitioner forthwith. Arrears as are due to the petitioner, be paid within three months from today and if that is done, no interest shall be paid thereupon. If arrears are not paid within three months, they shall entail interest 6% as from the date of this judgment. Regular family pension be paid to the petitioner from the month of May, 2026. 9. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.