The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the second wife of the deceased government employee is entitled to full family pension, when she is the sole surviving and eligible claimant.
Allowing a petition filed by the widow of a retired District Treasury Officer from Gurdaspur, Justice Namit Kumar set aside a communication denying her full family pension, and restricting her entitlement to 50 per cent of the pension on the ground that she was the “second wife” of the retiree.
The petitioner had sought quashing of the memo dated May 25, 2022, whereby her claim for full family pension was rejected and she was held entitled to only 50 per cent family pension. She had also challenged the reliance placed by the authorities on a Finance Department clarification dated October 24, 2006, while denying her full pensionary benefits.
The facts before the court were not in dispute. The petitioner’s husband, retired on October 31, 1996. His first wife died on November 6, 1980. Thereafter, he married the petitioner on May 30, 1992. He died on November 14, 2011.
Following his death, the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Chandigarh, issued a Pension Payment Order on August 3, 2015, granting the petitioner only 50 per cent family pension with the remark that she was the “second wife of retiree”.
The petitioner subsequently made representations seeking release of full family pension. However, her request was declined through the communication dated May 25, 2022, on the basis of “Note 1 and Note 2 below Rule 6.17(4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II”, and a Finance Department clarification issued on October 24, 2006.
Examining the matter, Justice Namit Kumar noted that the petitioner’s grievance was that she was the only surviving widow of the deceased employee and was therefore entitled to the entire family pension.
The court observed that Note 1 was applicable where a government employee was survived by more than one widow. In the present case, the first wife had died on November 6, 1980. As such, when the employee died on November 14, 2011, he was survived by only one widow — the petitioner.
Holding that the condition necessary for invoking Note 1 was absent, the court concluded that the provision was not applicable to the facts of the case and that the petitioner, being the sole surviving widow, was entitled to full family pension.
The court further held that Note 2 was also inapplicable as there was no eligible minor child from the first wife to whom any share of the pension was payable.
Justice Namit Kumar observed that the rule relating to apportionment of family pension applied where multiple eligible claimants existed at the same time. In the present case, owing to the absence of any eligible minor child from the first wife, who had died before the petitioner’s marriage to the employee, the petitioner was the only eligible claimant.
The court further observed that acceptance of the respondents’ interpretation would lead to an absurd and unjust consequence by resulting in a part of the family pension meant for the deceased employee’s family remaining unavailable despite there being only one eligible claimant. Such an interpretation, the court held, would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Family Pension Scheme.
Allowing the petition, Justice Namit Kumar set aside the memo dated May 25, 2022, and held the petitioner entitled to 100 per cent family pension with effect from November 14, 2011, the date of her husband’s death.
The respondents were directed to release the full family pension along with arrears and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
