IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

131 CWP-2009-2026 Date of Decision: January 27, 2026 Raj Rani .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Ajay Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.AG for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2 to 5.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release benefit of pension to the petitioner after the death of her mother in view of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner is a widow and has no independent source of income. Her late father, Sh. Banarsi Dass, was a regular employee of Haryana Vidyut Nigam Limited (HVPNL) and retired from service in the year 1989 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He expired on 09.05.1998, whereafter the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Pushpawati, was granted family pension, as is evident from Annexure P-2. The petitioner’s mother subsequently expired on 03.06.2021, at which time the petitioner was residing with her. Unfortunately, the petitioner’s husband, Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, also expired on 14.11.2023, as evidenced by the death certificate (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, who is presently 64 years of age, is now eligible for grant of family pension, as she has no source of income and is also maintaining her only child, who is 100% mentally disabled, as is evident from the disability certificate dated 03.10.2007 (Annexure P-6). It is further submitted that Rule 47 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 provides that a widowed daughter fulfilling the prescribed conditions at the time of death of the Government servant or his/her spouse is eligible for family pension. The State of Haryana, vide circular dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-5), has further clarified that a widowed/divorced daughter fulfilling the conditions is entitled to family pension when her turn arises.

3. Learned counsel also places reliance upon a revised Pension Payment Order (Annexure P-7), whereby a similarly situated person, namely Smt. Sharda Rani, whose father was a government employee, was granted family pension after the death of her mother and husband. The petitioner served a legal notice seeking similar relief; however, the same was arbitrarily rejected by the respondents vide impugned letter dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-8). Learned counsel submits that the petitioner fulfills all the eligibility conditions under Rule 47 of the Pension Rules, 2016 and the Government circular dated 01.01.2014. Denial of family pension to the petitioner, while granting the same benefit to a similarly situated person, is discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 submits that the claim of the petitioner was duly and fairly considered in accordance with law. It is contended that, in terms of the circular dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner is not entitled to family pension as a widowed daughter, as her husband expired after the death of the petitioner’s mother. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid circular clearly stipulates that a widowed daughter becomes eligible for family pension only in cases where the husband dies earlier leaving her dependent on the pensioner mother. In the present case, the petitioner’s husband died subsequent to the demise of her mother, and therefore, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable policy. It is further submitted that the impugned decision rejecting the petitioner’s claim is strictly in accordance with the governing Rules and the circu