Second wife denied family pension even after first wife’s death; what court said

AI generated image

NEW DELHI: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that a woman is entitled to 100 per cent of family pension as the sole surviving widow of a deceased government employee, rejecting the state's argument that her share should be capped at 50 per cent as she is the second wife.Justice Namit Kumar cancelled the Accountant General's order that had cut the petitioner's pension in half, and ordered the government to pay her the full pension, along with the unpaid arrears and interest, as per a report by LiveLaw.What was the disputeParshotam Lal Puri retired as District Treasury Officer in 1996. His first wife had died in 1980, after which he remarried to Manjit Kaur. Puri later died in 2011, and it was confirmed by the legal heir certificate that his second wife was the only person eligible to receive the family pension.Despite this, when the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab issued the pension in 2015, it released only half the amount, saying that she was the second wife of retiree.The petitioner asked the department several times to release the remaining half of her pension, but it kept refusing. In May 2022, the Accountant General once again turned down her request for full pension, citing Note 1 and Note 2 below Rule 6.17(4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, provisions meant for cases where a government employee leaves behind more than one widow.

After this, Manjit Kaur moved the high court, asking it to cancel this order and direct the government to give her the full pension along with the arrears and interest.The state's counsel argued that since there was no eligible legal heir from the first wife who had died earlier, her share of the pension should simply lapse rather than pass to the second wife, and hence 50 per cent of the pension was withheld.What did the court orderThe bench found that Note 1 had been wrongly applied to the facts of the case.

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, since his first wife had already died decades earlier.The court, relying on an earlier ruling in State of Punjab v. Harpal Kaur (2014), said that the family pension belongs to the deceased employee's family, and it's not the government's job to decide how it should be divided among them.The earlier Harpal Kaur ruling had made the same point that the government cannot hold back a person's share of the pension just on a technical ground, when that share is meant to be passed on to the 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, and 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 per cent family pension with effect from her husband's death in 2011, along with arrears carrying 6 per cent annual interest, to be paid within three months.