120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.12.2025 Karminderjit Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The 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 mandamus directing the respondents to sanction/grant the family pension to the petitioner as her husband, namely, Ranjit Singh Sandhu, who was a pensioner, died on 29.07.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the husband of the petitioner joined government service on 09.07.1959 and he was sent on deputation with PUNSUP from 02.07.1989 to 03.10.1983. Thereafter, he was permanently absorbed in PUNSUP and retired on 31.01.1996. After retirement, he started getting pension but unfortunately, he died on 29.07.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the documents with the Department for grant of family pension but the same has not been granted on the ground that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of Rule 5.3 (2) of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II. He further submits that husband of the petitioner served for about 24 years with the Punjab Government and over 12 years with PUNSUP and denying family pension is unjust.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the claim for family pension is not admissible in view of Rule 5.3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, as the husband of the petitioner stood permanently absorbed in PUNSUP, which is a separate legal entity.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it transpires that the husband of the petitioner had rendered long and qualifying service with the Punjab Government prior to his absorption in PUNSUP and had been granted pension accordingly. Moreover, once the employee was granted pension by the State Government, his widow cannot be denied family pension on the ground of permanent absorption and the benefit of family pension must follow in the same manner as pension. The issue raised herein is no longer res integra.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4951 and 4952 of 2009 titled as ‘The State of Punjab and another Vs. Mohinderjit Kaur (D) through LR’ decided on 17.08.2017 held that the employees, who after retirement were getting pension, their families are entitled for family pension as well under Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Operative part of the judgment is as under:-

“These appeals are filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, wherein the High Court has taken a stand that the employees transferred to non-pensionable establishments will also be entitled to family pension in case they are covered under Rule 5.3 of the Punjab Service Rules.

The said Rule reads as follows:-

“5.3(1) When a Government employee is transferred from pensionable Government service to a non-pensionable establishment, he cannot be granted any pension or gratuity admissible to him for the qualifying portion of his service until he actually retires from the non-pensionable establishment to which he is transferred.

(2) A permanent Government employee who may be permitted to be permanently absorbed in a service or post in or under a corporation or a company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by Government or in or under a body controlled by Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by Government, or Municipality, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, shall, if such absorption is declared by Government to be in the public interest, be deemed to have retired from the Government service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits which he may have elected or deemed to have elected, and from the date of s