IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:15.09.2025 Balvir Kaur …Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. K.S Sidhu, Advocate with Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned orders dated 09.07.2025 and 13.05.2025 (Annexures P-10 and P-11) respectively, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for grant of 100% family pension, being the second wife of deceased Gurmukh Singh, since deceased has been rejected illegally. It is further prayer in the petition that the petitioner is entitled to 100% family pension as per rules 6.17 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II and the law laid down by this Court in various judgments (Annexures P-6 to P-8 and P-12). A further prayer has been made to pay interest on the delayed payment of family pension in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Gurmukh Singh, husband of the petitioner was working as Librarian Assistant with Government Senior Secondary School, Pinjoli Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

He was married to Sukhwinder Kaur, who expired on 07.03.2004, during the life time of Gurmukh Singh. Out of the said wedlock, three childrens were born namely Narinder Singh, Gurjinder Singh and Navpreet Kaur. After the death of Sukhwinder Kaur, Gurmukh Singh had performed second marriage with the present petitioner and a male child namely Iqbal Singh was born on 21.01.2006. Unfortunately, Gurmukh Singh died in harness on 12.10.2013, leaving behind two sons and one daughter from Sukhwinder Kaur and one son, who was born to the petitioner, being the second wife. Initially, as per rules 6.17 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II, the petitioner and Narinder Singh, elder son of Gurmukh Singh were granted family pension in equal share. Later on, Narinder Singh was appointed on compassionate grounds vide order dated 24.05.2014 and the half share of the family pension was granted to Gurjinder Singh, who was aged about 18 years at that time. Even, Gurjinder Singh had attained the age of 25 years. Consequently, the petitioner alone is equally entitled to receive 100% family pension in view of Rules 6.17 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II. He further contends that all the aforestated facts were part of official record, which was available with the official respondents as well. However, by completely overlooking the official records, the case of the petitioner for grant of 100% family pension has been wrongly rejected by passing the orders (Annexures P-10 and P-11). Learned counsel further contends that vide order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-10), it has been observed that 100% family pension can be granted to a second wife subject to fulfillment of other conditions i.e. where the first wife is deceased and her children are either not available or not entitled to the family pension and only in cases, where the Hon’ble Court has specifically passed such order. Similar observations have been made by the respondents in the order (Annexure P-11) as well. In fact, the entire record pertaining to the family of Gurmukh Singh has already available with the official respondents and the reasons recorded in the impugned orders (Annexures P-10 and P-11) are highly unreasonable and without any basis. Moreover, for getting the family pension as per rules 6.17 of aforestated rules, no direction from any Hon’ble Court is required and the entitlement has to be decided by the official respondents.

3. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that vide the impugned orders (Annexures P-10 and P-11), the case of the petitioner was not rejected by the respondents and rather it has been stated that she was only entitled to family pension subject to fulfillment o