The right to pension as a vested entitlement necessitates recognition of only legitimate dependents for the disbursement of retiral benefits, irrespective of the existence of previous marital ties.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the remaining 50% of the retiral/pensionary benefits accrued to the deceased Rakesh Kumar, father of the petitioners, and all the consequential benefits including arrears and allowances as per Rules along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts are that Rakesh Kumar, father of the petitioners, was working as an Assistant Lineman (ALM) with the respondent-PSPCL. He died on 26.05.2013 and the petitioners are his only surviving legal heirs since the death of their mother (Rajni) and their grandmother (Vijay Rani) on 05.01.2023 and 07.03.2017, respectively. However, since the death of deceased employee, half of the pension amount and half of the gratuity amount have been withheld from his legal heirs citing that he had two families.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the deceased was married to one Meena, who had divorced him and remarried to one Raj Kumar, as discernible from her Aadhar Card (Annexure P-1) and she had been residing separately from the deceased since her remarriage with abovenamed Raj Kumar. Subsequently, the deceased married Rajni, mother of the petitioners, in the year 1988 and till date, neither Meena nor her children have ever claimed benefits of the services rendered by the deceased. Moreover, as per Dependency Certificate dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala as well as the data retrieved from the employee ID of the deceased (Annexure P-6), his legal heirs only ever included are Rajni (wife), Abhishek (son), Priyanka (daughter) and Vijay Rani (mother). As such, the petitioners deserve the retiral benefits to be disbursed to them in whole. However, half of the gratuity amount and half of the pension has been illegally withheld from legal heirs of the deceased, as the same was neither disbursed to the petitioners nor their late mother during her lifetime. Nothing mentioned in the Pension Payment Order justifies this approach taken by the respondent-PSPCL in terms of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have been paid all the admissible dues to the extent of 50% in terms of Rule 6.17 (supra), which provides that if a Government employee is survived by more than one widow, the pension will be paid to them in equal shares. On the death of a widow, her share of the pension will become payable to her eligible minor child. Further, the petitioners failed to submit any documents proving that deceased Rakesh Kumar was divorced from his first wife Meena. As such, the petitioners are only entitled to half of the financial benefits accrued on death of the deceased.

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

5. Having learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that half of the retiral benefits accrued to the deceased have been withheld from the petitioners on account of the fact that this is his second marriage. The deceased was previously married to one Meena, however, their marriage did not survive and she married one Raj Kumar subsequently. Thereafter, the deceased married Rajni in the year 1988 and the petitioners were born out of the said wedlock. Admittedly, the deceased and Meena