IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

232 CWP-24855-2024 Date of Decision: February 24, 2026 Nirmal Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) whereby the family pension of the petitioner has been allowed on the basis of 50% family pension and 50% fixed medical allowance alleging two families. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to release the full family pension along with pensonary benefits in favour of the petitioner as she is the only legally wedded wife of deceased Amarjit Singh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is the legally wedded widow of late Sh. Amarjit Singh, who unfortunately expired on 26.11.2019. It is submitted that the deceased employee was earlier married to Smt. Paramjit Kaur, who predeceased him on 26.12.2008. Thereafter, late Sh. Amarjit Singh solemnized a lawful marriage with the present petitioner on 16.03.2009. It is further contended that, despite the petitioner being the sole surviving spouse at the time of death of the deceased employee, she is being paid only 50% of the family pension, as is discernible from order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent-Corporation, on the premise that the deceased employee had two families.

3. Learned counsel further submits that three children, namely Damanpreet Kaur (daughter), Manmohan Singh and Avtar Singh (sons), were born out of the first wedlock. However, all of them had attained the age of majority prior to the demise of the deceased employee and were even major at the time of the petitioner’s marriage with the deceased in the year 2009. It is thus argued that none of them fall within the category of eligible dependents so as to claim family pension under the applicable rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner had served a legal notice dated 17.07.2024 upon the respondents, which failed to evoke any response. The petitioner, being wholly dependent upon the deceased employee and having no independent source of income, seeks a direction for release of the full family pension in her favour. In support of submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Harpal Kaur, LPA No. 1434 of 2014

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed inasmuch as the family pension was restricted to 50% in view of the existence of two marriages, in terms of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It is submitted that the deceased employee retired from the respondent-Corporation as an Assistant Junior Engineer and had contracted two marriages during his lifetime. Therefore, the family pension was initially apportioned in equal shares. However, it is fairly conceded that the first wife had expired prior to the death of the deceased employee and that the children born out of the first wedlock had already attained majority. It is also not disputed that no claim has been preferred by any of the said children with respect to the pensionary benefits after the demise of Sh. Amarjit Singh on 26.11.2019.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the action of the respondents in withholding 50% of the family pension solely on the ground that the petitioner is the second wife cannot be sustained in law. It is an admitted position that the first wife of the deceased employee expired in the year 2008, subsequent to