1 CWP-15148-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CWP-15148-2026 Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 Daljit Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankit Gaur, Advocate for the respondents (through V.C). HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned PPO dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) only to the extent it limits grant of 50% of family pension, instead of 100% to the petitioner being second wife of her deceased husband. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 100% family pension to petitioner and directing to respondents to make payment of all the arrears and other benefits along with all consequential benefits and also interest on delayed payment of 100% family pension to the petitioner from the date they fell due. In alternative directing PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.05.18 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-15148-2026 the respondents to consider and decide the legal notice dated 30.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) in a time bound frame in view of settled law on the subject. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the husband of the petitioner was initially married to one Sarabjit Kaur, out of which wedlock two sons and one daughter were born. However, the said Sarabjit Kaur expired on 29.06.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner solemnized marriage with the deceased employee, who had become a widower after the demise of his first wife, and out of the said wedlock two daughters were born in the years 2000 and 2003 respectively. It is further contended that the husband of the petitioner expired on 30.01.2011 while in service with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. The complete details of the family members were duly verified and certified by the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran vide communication dated 14.05.2012 (Annexure P-1). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for release of family pension and other retiral/pensionary benefits. 2.1 Learned counsel further submits that PPO dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) came to be issued containing a handwritten endorsement to the effect that since the petitioner was the “second wife”, she would be entitled only to 50% share of the family pension. It is argued that the said endorsement is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the factual as well as legal position inasmuch as the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased employee had admittedly been solemnized only after the death of the first PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.05.18 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-15148-2026 wife and, therefore, the petitioner is the legally wedded sole surviving spouse of the deceased employee. 2.2 It is further contended that the validity and legality of the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee has never been disputed by the respondents at any stage. Rather, the other legal heirs/family members of the deceased employee have also furnished their respective affidavits and consent letters supporting the claim of the petitioner for grant of full family pension in her favour. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents in restricting the family pension to 50% is wholly unsustainable in law and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-3359-2008, Ram Dulari Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 03.07.2009 (Annexure P-5), as well as the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP- 31051-2025, Renu Devi Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, decided on 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-6) and RA-CWP-487-2025 in CWP-5001-2023, Vidya Vati Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, decided on 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-7). 2.3 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may kindly be treated as a comprehensive representation and respondent No.1/competent authority be directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period, in the light of the aforesaid PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.05.18 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-15148-2026 judgments (Annexures P-5 to P-7), after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with law. 3. On advance notice, Mr. Ankit Gaur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents through video conferencing. He submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.1/competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 4. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law and in view of the aforesaid judgments (Annexures P-5 to P-7), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 4.1 It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. Needless to observe that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.05.18 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-15148-2026 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 15.05.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.05.18 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document