IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6539-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 06.03.2026 Kiran Bala ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), vide which family pension was declined to the petitioner and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension to her in view of instructions dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Government of Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that father of the petitioner, namely Panju Ram, was a retired employee of the respondent-Society and was getting the pension. However, he expired on 04.03.2023, as discernible from his death certificate dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-1). Consequent upon his death, mother of the petitioner became eligible and she was granted family pension and she also expired on 13.02.2024, which is evident from her death certificate dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P-2). Further, the petitioner was solely dependent on her mother and after death of her husband on 31.03.2024 (Annexure P-3), she has the responsibility of upbringing of her two minor children. As such, the petitioner is in dire need of pensionary benefits for the sustenance of herself and her minor children. The petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure P-4) claiming family pension being widow daughter of the deceased employee. However, respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), rejected her claim on the ground that widow daughter is eligible for family pension, only if she becomes widow before the date, on which the last eligible family member dies. As such, rejection of claim of the petitioner is contrary to the notification/instructions dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Government of Haryana, under which she fulfills all the eligibility criteria for family pension being widowed daughter of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-27707-

2019 titled as Ambika Vs. State of Haryana and others.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that as per Rule 8(10) (B)(iv) of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. As such, her claim has rightly been rejected vide impugned order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-5).

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that after death of father of the petitioner, her mother was getting family pension. Further, she also expired on 13.02.2024, at that time, the petitioner was not dependent upon her mother as her husband was alive. As such, in terms of instructions dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner is not entitled to family pension.

5. Further, this Court has already considered the instructions dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Government of Haryana and settled the controversy in CWP-2009-2026 titled as Raj Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 27.01.2026, wherein the following observations have been made: -

“5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file with their able assistance. Upon such consideration, it emerges that the mother of the petitioner expired on 03.06.2021, whereas the petitioner’s husband expired subsequently on 14.11.2023. A perusal of the Government instructions dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-5) clearly indicates that a widowed daughter, having no source of income at the time of death of the family pensioner, may be