Is Sole Surviving Widow Entitled To Full Family Pension Despite Being 'Second Wife'? P&H High Court Answers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where a deceased government employee is survived by only one widow and there are no eligible claimants from a pre-deceased spouse, the surviving widow is entitled to full (100%) family pension.

The Court clarified that the State cannot retain any portion of the pension by misapplying provisions meant for cases involving multiple beneficiaries.

Justice Namit Kumar said, "The rule for apportionment applies when there are multiple eligible claimants at the same time. In the present case, due to non- availability of any minor child from the first wife, who had already died before the marriage of the petitioner, the petitioner is the only eligible claimant. As such, if the interpretation given by the respondents is accepted, it would lead to absurd and unjust consequence of the State misappropriating a part of the family pension meant for the deceased's family, which is contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Family Pension Scheme."

The Court allowed plea filed by Manjit Kaur, setting aside the decision of the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, which had restricted her entitlement to 50% family pension on the ground that she was the “second wife” of the deceased employee.

The petitioner's husband, Parshotam Lal Puri, retired as District Treasury Officer, Gurdaspur, in 1996 and passed away on November 14, 2011. His first wife had predeceased him in 1980, after which he remarried the petitioner in 1992. Following his death, the petitioner was issued a Pension Payment Order in 2015 granting only 50% of the family pension, citing her status as a second wife.

Despite repeated representations, the authorities rejected her claim for full pension through a memo dated May 25, 2022, relying on Notes 1 and 2 below Rule 6.17(4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II.

The Court observed that the provisions relied upon by the State apply only in cases where a government employee is survived by more than one widow or where there are eligible minor children from another spouse.

In the present case, it was undisputed that the first wife had died long before the death of the employee and there were no eligible minor children from the first marriage at the time of his death. The petitioner was the sole surviving widow.

In such circumstances, the Court held that Note 1, which contemplates apportionment of pension among multiple widows, had no application. Similarly, Note 2 was also inapplicable as there was no eligible minor child from the earlier marriage.

Relying on the Division Bench judgment in State of Punjab v. Harpal Kaur, the Court reiterated that the State is obligated to disburse the full family pension and cannot appropriate any portion on the ground that another claimant's share has ceased.

The Court emphasized that family pension is a right of the legal heirs and forms part of the estate of the deceased employee.

Apportionment rules apply only when multiple eligible claimants exist simultaneously, Any interpretation allowing the State to retain a portion of pension would lead to unjust and absurd consequences, defeating the purpose of the family pension scheme.

Allowing the plea, the Court set aside the impugned memo dated May 25, 2022, Held the petitioner entitled to 100% family pension.

Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Mr. R.K. Arora, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prabhat K. Jalbera, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Brijesh Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.4 (through video conferencing).

Title: Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read order