The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a woman is entitled to receive the full family pension as the sole surviving widow of a deceased government employee, dismissing the state's contention that her share should be limited to 50 percent because she is the second wife.
Background of the Case
Justice Namit Kumar overturned the Accountant General's order that had reduced the petitioner's pension by half, directing the government to pay her the complete pension along with unpaid arrears and interest, as reported by LiveLaw.
Parshotam Lal Puri, who served as District Treasury Officer, retired in 1996. His first wife passed away in 1980, after which he married Manjit Kaur. Puri died in 2011, and the legal heir certificate confirmed that his second wife was the sole person eligible for the family pension.
The Dispute Over Pension
Despite this certification, when the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab issued the pension in 2015, only half the amount was released, citing that she was the second wife of the retiree. The petitioner repeatedly requested the department to release the remaining half, but her pleas were consistently rejected.
In May 2022, the Accountant General again denied her request for full pension, invoking Note 1 and Note 2 under Rule 6.17(4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which are provisions meant for cases where a government employee leaves behind more than one widow. Following this, Manjit Kaur approached the High Court, seeking cancellation of the order and direction for full pension along with arrears and interest.
The state's counsel argued that since there was no eligible legal heir from the first wife, who had predeceased the employee, her share of the pension should lapse rather than pass to the second wife, justifying the withholding of 50 percent of the pension.
Court's Decision
The bench found that Note 1 had been incorrectly applied to the facts. It noted that the rule applies only when the government employee is survived by more than one widow, whereas Puri was survived by only one widow at the time of his death, as his first wife had died decades earlier.
Relying on the earlier ruling in State of Punjab v. Harpal Kaur (2014), the court stated that the family pension belongs to the deceased employee's family, and it is not the government's role to decide how it should be divided among them. The Harpal Kaur ruling had established that the government cannot withhold a person's share of pension on a technical ground when that share is intended for other eligible family members.
Applying this reasoning, Justice Kumar held that since there was no eligible minor child from the first marriage to whom any share could devolve, both Note 1 and Note 2 were inapplicable. The petitioner, "who is the sole surviving widow is entitled for the grant of full family pension."
The court added that accepting the department's interpretation would lead to an "absurd and unjust consequence of the State misappropriating a part of the family pension meant for the deceased's family."
The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to grant Manjit Kaur 100 percent family pension with effect from her husband's death in 2011, along with arrears carrying 6 percent annual interest, to be paid within three months.
