IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

279 CWP-24670-2018 Date of Decision: September 16, 2025 Shashi Bala and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.6.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned communication/ letter No. 18722/LB-2(24) 2392/16 dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure P-12) whereby the claim of petitioner No. 1 for family pension has been declined. A further prayer is made seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release family pension to the petitioners along with arrears and interest.

2. Tersely put, the facts of the case are that the Sadhu Ram Thaper, a deceased employee of the respondent-Corporation, solemnised a second marriage with petitioner No. 1-Shashi Bala and out of the said wedlock, petitioner No.2-Priyanka Thaper was born. Notably, his first wife- Santosh Thaper, passed away on 10.11.2005. He retired from service on

31.03.2005 and named the petitioners as his nominees as discernible from Pension Form No.15 (Annexure P-4) submitted by him to the respondent- Corporation. Subsequently, he passed away on 14.02.2015. Petitioner No.1 approached respondent-Corporation seeking family pension for herself and her daughter (petitioner No.2) and submitted all necessary documents. The representation of petitioner No.1 was forwarded to the Legal Advisor to the respondent-Corporation. It was opined vide the impugned communication (Annexure P-12) that petitioner No.1 is not eligible for family pension as the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the deceased is null and void in terms of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the deceased had no children with his first wife. In fact, his first wife had passed away on 10.11.2005. Further, the deceased had himself nominated both the petitioners for family pension as evidenced by Form 15 (Annexure P-4) and a supporting affidavit dated 29.01.2013 (Annexures P-4B). He further submits that a myopic and erroneous view has been taken by the respondent- Corporation by declaring the marriage between the deceased and petitioner No. 1 to be null and void in terms of Sections 11 and 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent-Corporation is obligated to release pensionary benefits in terms of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and not by invocation of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As such, the petitioners are entitled to family pension under Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, by which the respondent-Corporation is governed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned communication and submits that since the second marriage of the deceased employee was solemnized during the lifetime of his first wife, the same is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, petitioner No. 1 cannot be considered as 'family' in terms of Rule 6.17(3) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. Thus, she is not entitled to any family pension.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that petitioner No.1 is the second wife of the deceased and petitioner No.2 was born out of this wedlock. Evidently, petitioner No.1 and the deceased shared a marital relationship as they cohabited together as husband and wife for 13 years, till his death. A perusal of the marriage verification certificate (Annexure P-1) issued by the Gram Panchayat, village Mugal Majra indicates that petitioner No.1 and the deceased solemnized their marriage on 11.01.2002. It also clearly states that the couple was