Karewa Marriage Not a Ground to Deny Family Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Restoration to Widows
Case Name: Paramjit Kaur v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others; Darshana Devi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Others; Sharmila Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others
Date of Judgment: 07 March 2026
Citation: CWP-2192-2024, CWP-30264-2018, CWP-5330-2022
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a karewa marriage (widow’s remarriage to the brother of the deceased husband) cannot be treated as a disqualifying remarriage for the purpose of family pension. The Court ruled that widows who continue to live within the same matrimonial family remain entitled to family pension, as the social and financial dependency structure of the deceased employee’s family remains intact.
Summary: The High Court decided three writ petitions together since they raised a common legal question regarding whether widows who entered into karewa marriages after the death of their husbands were disentitled from receiving family pension under service rules.
In the first petition, the husband of the petitioner Paramjit Kaur had served as an Assistant Lineman and died in harness in 1977. The petitioner later married the younger brother of the deceased by way of karewa marriage and continued receiving family pension for decades until it was abruptly stopped in 2022 after authorities discovered her remarriage through Aadhaar details. Her claim for restoration of family pension was rejected on the ground that family pension ceases upon remarriage of the widow.
In the second case, the petitioner Darshana Devi’s husband had died in service in 1991. After his death, she remarried his real brother through karewa marriage. The pension was initially transferred to her daughter and later to her son until he attained the age of 25 years. After the cessation of pension to the son, the petitioner sought restoration of family pension in her own name, which was rejected by the authorities.
In the third petition, Sharmila Devi’s husband had died in harness in 1993 while serving as an Assistant Lineman. She subsequently married the younger brother of the deceased. Although terminal benefits and compassionate appointment were granted, family pension was sanctioned in the name of her daughter rather than in her own name due to her remarriage. Once the daughter married and the pension stopped, the petitioner sought restoration of family pension but the request was declined.
The Court examined the nature and purpose of family pension and observed that retiral benefits often serve as the sole financial support for families after the death of the primary breadwinner. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in D.K. Nakara v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that pension is not a bounty but a right earned by the employee and relied upon by dependents for survival.
The Court further emphasized that family pension forms part of the broader constitutional vision of a welfare state and is linked with the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Denying such benefits without considering the social realities would undermine the purpose of social security measures meant to protect dependents of deceased employees.
The Court also discussed the social context of karewa marriages, noting that such marriages are customary and recognised under law. The practice serves to preserve family bonds, provide care for children of the deceased, and ensure continuity of support within the same household. Unlike remarriage into a new family, a karewa marriage does not sever the widow’s ties with the matrimonial family of the deceased employee.
The Court observed that service rules disqualifying widows from family pension upon remarriage were designed with the assumption that the widow would move to a new family that would assume responsibility for her financial support. However, in karewa marriages the widow continues to remain part of the same family unit and continues to contribute to the welfare of the deceased employee’s dependents.
Therefore, mechanically applying the disqualification rule to such marriages would ignore social realities and defeat the beneficial purpose of family pension provisions. The Court noted that the State of Punjab had already recognised this social context by amending Rule 8.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules to allow pension benefits where a widow remarries the brother of the deceased and continues to live a communal family life.
The Court further emphasised that beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally to advance its purpose rather than restrict it through rigid literal interpretation. Since the petitioners continued to live within the same family structure and remained connected with the dependents of the deceased employees, their entitlement to family pension could not be denied merely because of karewa remarriage.
Decision: The High Court allowed all three writ petitions and directed the respective authorities to restore the family pension of the petitioners. The respondents were further directed to recalculate the arrears and release the amounts within four months, failing which interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum would become payable until realization.