IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-2760-CWP-2026 in/&

102 CWP-2677-2022 Date of Decision :24.02.2026 Rekha and others ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sudhir Nar, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondent-UOI.

(joined through V.C.)

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-2760-CWP-2026

1. Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court by which, the main petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court is recalled and the main petition is ordered to be restored to its original number and status and by consent of counsel the main case is taken up for hearing today itself.

CWP-2677-2022

3. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.2-Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the claim of the petitioner No.1 for the grant of benefit of family pension has been declined.

4. It may be noticed that the husband of the petitioner namely, Bhola Ram with whom she claims to be married on 09.11.1994 and out of the said wedlock, two daughters namely, Ashu and Ritu were born and while in service, said Bhola Ram unfortunately died on 29.07.2016. In order to get the service benefits and pensionary benefits in respect of the services rendered by Bhola Ram, a suit was filed by the petitioners under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which suit was decreed by the competent Court of Law on 27.09.2018 ((Annexure P/4) and a succession certificate was issued in favour of petitioners in respect to the estate of deceased Bhola Ram by treating petitioner No.1 as wife of Bhola Ram.

5. It may be further noted that when the petitioner No.1 applied for pensionary benefit as well as family pension on the basis of the succession certificate though gratuity amount was released on the basis of the succession certificate but family pension was declined by the department- PGIMER, Chandigarh vide order dated 26.10.2019 (Annexure P/6) on the ground that as per the declaration form dated 12.12.1991 (Annexure P/5), said Bhola Ram had mentioned Kanta Rani as his wife, which record was never challenged and therefore, as there is no detail available as to whether the said Kanta Rani is alive or not and whether she had died before the alleged marriage, no benefit can be extended to the petitioners.

6. The said order dated 26.10.2019 (Annexure P/6) passed by the department was challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal but she remained unsuccessful, which led to filing of the present petition before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that once, the petitioner No.1 married to Bhola Ram on 09.11.1994 and they lived as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, two daughters were born and it has also come on record that Kanta Rani had died in the year 2007 before the death of Bhola Ram coupled with the fact that in the succession certificate she has also been treated as Class-I legal heir being a wife of Bhola Ram and had already been granted gratuity amount on the basis of the succession certificate in respect of the services rendered by late Bhola Ram, hence, for the purpose of grant of benefit of family pension, she cannot be treated as a stranger, which fact has gone unnoticed not only by the department vide order dated 26.10.2019 (Annexure P/6) while declining the claim of the petitioners but also by the Tribunal while passing impugned order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/7) therefore, the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner No.1 as wife of Bhola Ram so as to grant the benefit