Devi Savitri Devi State of Punja Punjab and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
CWP-9400- -2023 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA CWP-94 Date of 9400-2023 ate of Decision: December 10, 2025 232 Devi Savitri Devi State of Punja Punjab and others SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. J.S. Bhinder, Advocate for th for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
ordinate bench of this court in Jaspa 021 aspal Kaur v. State of Punjab 2021 748. (2) SCT 748. 6. Family pension is the rightf eased rightful property of the deceased employee's le ee's legal heirs. The government must unt. If t must pay the full pension amount. If there are mul re multiple heirs, the pension can be d if one n be divided among them. But if one heir becomes comes ineligible ,for example, a chi share a child attains majority, their share does not go ot go back to the government. Ins to the t. Instead, it must be given to the remaining el ing eligible heirs.The State’s functio ve: to function is purely administrative: to release the e the entirety of the pensionary benefi irs. It benefits to the eligible legal heirs. It has no author authority to withhold or appropriate an on the riate any portion of the pension on the ground that o that one of the recipients has become eceive ecome ineligible. The right to receive family pensio pension is governed by principles of s annot es of succession, and the State cannot interpose itse se itself as a beneficiary or alter the d based r the devolution of such rights based on a restrictiv strictive or erroneous interpretation of ion of pension rules. 7. Accordingly, the present petitio dents petition is allowed. The respondents are directed ected to release the arrears of retiral/ to retiral/pensionary benefits accrued to the deceased eased i.e. Lahori Ram, in its entirety, period tirety, to the petitioner within a period of three mont e months from the date of receipt of a c t of a certified copy of this order. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.24 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9400- -2023 5 8. The petitioner would be entit entitled to interest on the arrears rrears @ 6% per a per annum to be calculated two mo till its wo months after its due date till its tion. realization. 9. Pending miscellaneous applicat stand plication(s), if any, shall also stand
Arguments
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab unjab. Mr. Amrit Singh Kang, Advocat dvocate for respondents No.2 to 4. **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been fil of the een filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution tution of India praying seeking issua ure of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondents No.1 t ion in No.1 to 4 to issue family pension in favour of the of the petitioner in its entirety, being t ife of being the only legally wedded wife of the deceased eased employee. 2. A perusal of the paper book of the book indicates that husband of the petitioner- Lahori Ram served responde ment. pondent No.2 till his retirement. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.24 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9400- -2023 2 Previously, h usly, he was married to one Kamla ay on Kamla Devi, who passed away on 09.01.1960, 960, as discernible from the death certificate available the ilable at Annexure exure P-1. From this wedlock, one , one daughter- Soma Devi and one one son-Gurdas R rdas Ram were born. Thereafter, h , who fter, he married the petitioner, who remained his ed his only legally wedded wife till From fe till his death on 02.01.2017. From this second w cond wedlock, five children- three dau e born ee daughters and two sons, were born to the couple couple. Upon the death of Lahori R ed for hori Ram, the petitioner applied for family pensio pension and submitted all the requis ard to requisite documents in this regard to respondent N dent No.3, except for the marriage ce never age certificate as the same had never been prepare repared. However, the Sarpanch of th ed the h of the village Surewal verified the factum of the of the petitioner being the only legall eased legally wedded wife of the deceased by issuing a uing a document (Annexure P-4), w y the 4), which was also attested by the Namabardar ardar of village Surewal. Further, the of the er, the Soma Devi, the daughter of the deceased fro ed from his first marriage, have a s 5) ve a self-declaration (Annexure P-5) stating that s that she has no objection if the entire s paid entire family pension amount is paid to the petiti petitioner. In spite of this, respo dated respondent No.2, vide PPO dated 06.11.2017 (A 017 (Annexure P-6), granted only hal nsion nly half the amount of family pension to the petition petitioner on the ground that the decea ilies. deceased employee had two families. The petitione titioner served a legal notice dated 23. .2 but ed 23.02.2023 to respondent No.2 but no action has on has been taken by it. The petitione him, etitioner was fully dependent on him, and does not es not have any independent source yer is ource of income and thus a prayer is made to dire to direct the respondents to grant h family rant her the full amount of family pension. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.24 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9400- -2023 3 3. Learned counsel for responden at the ondents No.2 to 4 submits that the deceased em ed employee, husband of the petition m the etitioner, retired as an OC from the respondent- -PSPCL. The deceased employee , thus, ployee had been married twice, thus, the family pe ily pension was correctly split in ha of the in half in terms of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Civil Service Rules. However, since away since his first wife had passed away and both the th the children born out of that wedloc ir half wedlock have turned major, their half of the family family pension would cease. Thus, th rrectly hus, the petitioner has been correctly awarded PPO PO dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure P xure P-6). 4. Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record of ord of the case, it transpires that the ha crued the half of the retiral benefits accrued to the deceas eceased and have been withheld from of her from the petitioner on account of her being his sec his second wife. Admittedly, the firs assed he first wife of the deceased passed away in the n the year 1960, subsequent to which and which he married the petitioner and both the child e children borne out of the first wife h jority wife have attained the age of majority leaving the the petitioner as the only eligibl eased eligible legal heir of the deceased employee. 5. The issue involved is no longer Bench longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court Court in State of Punjab v. Harpal 014, rpal Kaur, LPA No. 1434 of 2014 dealt with a ith an identical issue and while sp Satish hile speaking through Justice Satish Kumar Mitta Mittal held the following held: “In any case, the State mily tate is liable to pay 100% family pension, which can be s egal be shared by any number of legal heirs of the deceased em nnot d employee, but the State cannot retain the share of one le t he ne legal heir on the ground that he has attained the age of 2 have of 25 years and his right to have family pension has ceas an ceased. The family pension is an PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.24 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9400- -2023 4 estate of the legal heirs The eirs of the deceased employee. The apportionment of the fa ased e family pension of a deceased employee is not the busi the business of the State. Right in the family pension will dev indu devolve according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.” Reliance in this regard may be p dered y be placed on the judgment rendered by a coordina
Decision
ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE December 10 P.C 10, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.24 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document