The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the sole surviving widow to full family pension as per Rule 6.17, Volume-II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, and the inapplicability of Note-1 and Note-2 appended to the rule.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, prohibition etc. for quashing of order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.3 and for directing the respondents to grant full family pension to the petitioner as per Rule 6.17 Volume-II, Punjab Civil Services Rules alongwith interest as the petitioner is the widow of deceased employee.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the husband of the petitioner namely Balwinder Singh joined the Police Department on 24.01.1994 and he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable. After completing qualifying service of 21 years and 5 months, unfortunately he passed away on 11.10.2015 leaving behind two legal heirs i.e. petitioner Manjit Kaur being widow and Amanjit Singh who is the son of first wife of Balwinder Singh. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, a civil suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration to the effect that the petitioner and defendant No.3 are the legal heirs and are entitled to inherit the moveable and immovable properties and pensionary benefits of deceased Balwinder Singh. In the civil suit, both the parties suffered statement on 11.02.2016 after arriving at an agreement by stating that the aforesaid Amanjit Singh will have no objection if the family pension is given to the petitioner and that the petitioner will have no objection if Amanjit Singh is given the benefit of compassionate appointment. The said civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide Annexure P-2 and it was directed that the parties will be bound by their statement suffered in the Court. Thereafter, the respondent-State sanctioned only 50% of the total family pension to the petitioner being second wife. The husband of the petitioner had an earlier wife whose son is aforesaid Amanjit Singh and the earlier wife namely Kulwinder Kaur had died on 08.09.2006. Since only 50% of the pension was sanctioned to the petitioner, she served a legal notice dated 14.08.2018 vide Annexure P-4 but no action was taken in this regard and therefore the petitioner was constrained to file a civil writ petition No. 30143 of 2018 before this Court which was disposed of vide Annexure P-5 with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed vide Annexure P-6 in which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala while passing the order relied upon Rule 6.17, Volume-II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and came to the conclusion that since the petitioner is the second wife and earlier wife of the husband of the petitioner had died on 08.09.2006, the proportionate pension as admissible to the first wife would be ceased because had there been any eligible child from the first wife, then he would have been entitled for the same but in the present case, the petitioner would not be entitled for full family pension.

3. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the reasoning given in the impugned order Annexure P-6 is totally contrary to law and especially Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. He submitted that first wife of the husband of the petitioner had died on 08.09.2006 and at the time when the husband of the petitioner had died on 11.10.2015, she was the only widow surviving and therefore in view of provisions of Rule 6.17 and the definition of family which includes the wife, she was entitled for full family pension. He submitted that in the impugned order, a reliance which has been made upon Note- 1, 2 and 3 appended alongwith Rule 6.17 (4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules was not applicable to the present petitioner especially in view of the fact that there was no minor child available from the first wife at the time when the husband of the petitioner had died and the petitioner was only the sole surviving widow and therefore the imp