JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This common judgment shall dispose of all three of the above mentioned writ petitions as they pose an identical question of law.

2. The present writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking:

(i) CWP-2192-2024: Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for family pension, which had been discontinued w.e.f. March, 2022, was rejected. Further, issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent-department to release family pension to the petitioner.

(ii) CWP-30264-2018: Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 18.05.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.4 vide which the request of the petitioner for restoration of her family pension was rejected without providing any reasons for the same. Further, issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to start monthly family pension of the petitioner and, pay the arrears of the same w.e.f. 01.01.2017 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

(iii) CWP-5330-2022: Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned action of the respondents whereby the request of the petitioner for restoration of family pension has been orally rejected. Further, issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to start monthly family pension of the petitioner and, pay the arrears of the same w.e.f. September, 2020 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

CONTENTIONS

(i) CWP-2192-2024

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the husband of the petitioner namely Piara Singh worked as an Assistant Lineman for the respondent- Department. The marriage between the petitioner and Piara Singh was solemnised in the year 1972 and three children were born from this wedlock. Unfortunately, Piara Singh died in harness on 10.11.1977. Subsequently, the petitioner was married to Karnail Singh, younger brother of Piara Singh, by way of karewa marriage. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was continuously receiving family pension till February, 2022, which was stopped abruptly without any prior notice. The petitioner served multiple representations to the respondent-Department but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 21.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) on the respondent-Department but received no response. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed CWP No.16815 of 2023 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to decide the said legal notice within 08 weeks. Consequently, impugned order dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) was passed whereby, the petitioner’s claim was rejected citing her remarriage with Karnail Singh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been denied family pension only for the reason of her customary remarriage to the brother of the deceased employee. The petitioner has not remarried into a new family but remains a member of the family of the deceased. She relies upon the judgments rendered by respective Division Benches of this Court in Kamaljit Kaur vs. Union of India 1998 (1) SCT 312 and Kiran Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2004 (1) SCT 650 to contend that widows remarried to the family of their deceased husband are entitled to family pension as their dependency remains in alignment with the need of the family of the deceased. Further, an amendment was made to Rule 8.35 (2)(b) the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II (hereinafter ‘PCSR’) on 28.05.1975 which provides that a widow who has remarried the brother of the deceased and continues to live a communal life, supporting the deceased employee’s family, would be entitled to extraordinary pension.

5. A perusal of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents indicates that a life certificate was sought from the petitioner in April, 2022, in pursuance of