State Cannot Retain Family Pension Meant for Legal Heirs: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants 100% Family Pension to Sole Surviving Widow holds Second Wife After Death of First Wife Entitled to Full Family Pension

Case Name: Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 22 May 2026

Citation: CWP-21124-2023

Bench: Justice Namit Kumar

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where a government employee is survived by only one widow and there is no eligible minor child from the pre-deceased first wife, the surviving widow is entitled to 100% family pension. The Court ruled that the State cannot retain a portion of family pension by mechanically applying pension apportionment rules meant for multiple eligible claimants.

Summary: The petitioner, Manjit Kaur, approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the decision of the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, which restricted her family pension entitlement to only 50% on the ground that she was the “second wife” of the deceased pensioner. She sought quashing of the memo dated 25.05.2022 and a direction for grant of full family pension with arrears and interest.

The petitioner’s husband, Parshotam Lal Puri, retired as District Treasury Officer, Gurdaspur, and subsequently drew pension from the Punjab Government until his death on 14.11.2011. His first wife had died on 06.11.1980. Thereafter, he legally married the petitioner on 30.05.1992, and the marriage was duly registered. Following his death, the Legal Heir Certificate identified the petitioner as the only surviving spouse eligible for family pension.

Despite this, while issuing the Pension Payment Order in 2015, the Accountant General sanctioned only 50% of the family pension to the petitioner by describing her as the “second wife of retiree.” Repeated representations seeking release of full family pension were rejected. Ultimately, the authorities relied upon Notes 1 and 2 below Rule 6.17(4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, and a Finance Department clarification dated 24.10.2006 to deny her claim for 100% pension.

The petitioner argued that the pension rules governing apportionment among multiple widows had no application because the first wife had predeceased the employee by several years. It was further contended that there was no eligible minor child from the first marriage at the time of the pensioner’s death. Therefore, she remained the sole surviving widow entitled to the entire family pension. Reliance was placed upon the Division Bench judgment in State of Punjab v. Harpal Kaur.

The State defended the impugned order by contending that under Note 1 below Rule 6.17(4), the share attributable to the first wife would cease in the absence of an eligible minor child and could not automatically accrue to the petitioner. Accordingly, the authorities maintained that only 50% family pension was payable.

Justice Namit Kumar rejected the State’s interpretation and observed that Note 1 applies only where a government employee is survived by more than one widow. In the present case, the employee was survived by only one widow because the first wife had died decades before his death. The Court further noted that there was admittedly no eligible minor child from the first wife who could claim any share of pension.

Relying extensively on the Division Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Harpal Kaur and the earlier judgment in Ram Dulari v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that the State cannot retain any portion of family pension merely because one class of beneficiary ceases to be eligible. Family pension is payable in its entirety to the eligible legal heirs and cannot be appropriated by the State.

The Court observed that pension apportionment provisions operate only where multiple eligible claimants exist simultaneously. Once there is only one surviving eligible beneficiary, denial of the remaining share would defeat the very object of the family pension scheme and lead to an unjust result. The Court specifically remarked that acceptance of the State’s interpretation would amount to the State misappropriating a part of the family pension intended for the deceased employee’s family.

Decision: Allowing the writ petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the impugned memo and held the petitioner entitled to 100% family pension from the date of death of her husband. The respondents were directed to release the entire family pension along with arrears and interest at the rate of 6% per annum within three months.