IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13496-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.01.2026 Jagmati Jain ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Virender Singh Punia, Advocate with Mr. Varun Mor, Advocate and Mr. P.P. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate (through video conferencing)

for respondent No.4/HSVP.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting-aside/quashing clause 12-A(viii) (Annexure P-1) (Dated 11.05.1977) to the extent of depriving family pension to the family members of permanently observed Government Employee in the public sector undertaking being contrary to the Family Pension Rules, 1964 being known as Punjab Civil Service (Pension) Rules as applicable to Haryana and also for setting-aside the order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to pay the family pension along with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of her husband death along with arrears, which have accrued on account of non grant of family pension from the date of death of her husband. Further prayer has been made to decide the case of the petitioner in terms of CWP-8712-2015, titled as Tara Devi vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 01.02.2017

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is the widow of a government employee who initially served in the Urban Estate Department (respondent No.2) from 27.06.1963 to 30.09.1978 as discernible from Annexure P-2. The husband of the petitioner was subsequently sent on deputation and permanently absorbed in HUDA (now HSVP) (respondent No.4 herein), where he served from 01.10.1978 until his retirement on 30.04.2003 as is evident from Annexure P-3. During his lifetime, the deceased husband of the petitioner was drawing two pro-rata pensions, one from the Urban Estate Department (respondent No.2) for his service from 1963-1978 and another from HSVP (respondent No.4) for his service from 1978-2003 as discernible from Annexure P-5. After his death on 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was sanctioned family pension only by respondent No.4 (HSVP) for the period 1978-2003 (Annexure P-6), while her claim for family pension from respondent No.2 (Urban Estate Department) for the period 1963-1978 was rejected vide order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-8), citing Clause 12-A(viii) of the Government Instructions dated 11.05.1977 (Annexure P-1), which allegedly barred the grant of family pension in such cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such rejection is arbitrary and inequitable as the petitioner is entitled to family pension for the entire period of her deceased husband’s service. He further argues that the bar under Clause 12-A(viii) cannot override the legal entitlement of a widow to receive pension for services rendered and denial of the same amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice, equity, and settled legal precedents recognizing dual service pension claims. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension for the period 1963-1978 in addition to the pension already sanctioned by respondent No.4 is legally valid and the respondents cannot deny her rightful entitlement on the basis of Clause 12-A(viii) of the Government Instructions dated 11.05.1977 (Annexure P-1). He further contends that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Tara Devi’s case (supra)

3. Per contra, learned State counsel refers to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits that in terms of the Government Instru