##PAGE1##

CWP-13496-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

113

CWP-13496-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.01.2026

Jagmati Jain

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. Virender Singh Punia, Advocate

with Mr. Varun Mor, Advocate

and Mr. P.P. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate (through video conferencing)

for respondent No.4/HSVP.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of

certiorari, for setting-aside/quashing clause 12-A(viii) (Annexure P-1)

(Dated 11.05.1977) to the extent of depriving family pension to the

family members of permanently observed Government Employee in the

public sector undertaking being contrary to the Family Pension Rules,

1964 being known as Punjab Civil Service (Pension) Rules as

applicable to Haryana and also for setting-aside the order dated

06.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2. Further a writ

of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to pay the

family pension along with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner

1 of 11

::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 12:00:28 :::

CWP-13496-2025 2

w.e.f. the date of her husband death along with arrears, which have

accrued on account of non grant of family pension from the date of

death of her husband. Further prayer has been made to decide the case

of the petitioner in terms of CWP-8712-2015, titled as Tara Devi vs

State of Haryana and others, decided on 01.02.2017

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that

the petitioner is the widow of a government employee who initially

served in the Urban Estate Department (respondent No.2) from

27.06.1963 to 30.09.1978 as discernible from Annexure P-2. The

husband of the petitioner was subsequently sent on deputation and

permanently absorbed in HUDA (now HSVP) (respondent No.4 herein),

where he served from 01.10.1978 until his retirement on 30.04.2003 as

is evident from Annexure P-3. During his lifetime, the deceased

husband of the petitioner was drawing two pro-rata pensions, one from

the Urban Estate Department (respondent No.2) for his service from

1963-1978 and another from HSVP (respondent No.4) for his service

from 1978-2003 as discernible from Annexure P-5. After his death on

15.09.2023 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was sanctioned family

pension only by respondent No.4 (HSVP) for the period 1978-2003

(Annexure P-6), while her claim for family pension from respondent

No.2 (Urban Estate Department) for the period 1963-1978 was rejected

vide order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-8), citing Clause 12-A(viii) of

the Government Instructions dated 11.05.1977 (Annexure P-1), which

allegedly barred the grant of family pension in such cases. Learned

2 of 11

::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 12:00:29 :::

CWP-13496-2025 3

counsel for the petitioner further submits that such rejection is arbitrary

and inequitable as the petitioner is entitled to family pension for the

entire period of her deceased husband’s service. He further argues that

the bar under Clause 12-A(viii) cannot override the legal entitlement of

a widow to receive pension for services rendered and denial of the same

amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice, equity, and

settled legal precedents recognizing dual service pension claims.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that the claim of the

petitioner for grant of family pension for the period 1963-1978 in

addition to the pension already sanctioned by respondent No.4 is legally

valid and the respondents cannot deny her rightful entitlement on the

basis of Clause 12-A(viii) of the Government Instructions dated

11.05.1977 (Annexure P-1). He further contends that the case of the

petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by this

Court in Tara Devi’s case (supra)

3. Per contra, learned State cou