‘Right to life not just animal-like existence’: Punjab and Haryana High Court grants dual family pension to widow

Findings

• The petitioner’s husband, during his lifetime, was drawing two pro-rata pensions: one from the urban estate department for the service provided from 1963 to 1978 and another from HSVP for the service rendered from 1978 to 2003.
• The government instructions of 1977, which state that when a government employee is absorbed in a public sector undertaking,  the liability of the government for pension and family pension would cease, could only be applicable prospectively.
• Pension and other retirement benefits are not of a gratuitous nature. The retiree earns these benefits for their dedicated service given to their employer for a significant portion of their life.
• The authority concerned’s approach in depriving the petitioner of family pension is held to be “wholly unjustified”.

• Retirement benefits are often the sole source of income for the employee’s family.
• The family pension is a “natural right” that follows from the pension already granted, and no rule or instruction can take away this entitlement.
• The denial of family pension by the authority concerned is arbitrary, inequitable and violative of the petitioner’s vested rights.
• Pension, being a deferred remuneration for long and dedicated service, constitutes a substantive legal right and is essential for the sustenance and dignity of the family of the dead employee under Article 21.
• The January 28 order instructed the authority concerned to grant the family pension to the petitioner along with an interest rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of death of her husband till actual payment, within a period of three months.

Arguments

• Petitioner’s counsel, advocate Virender Singh Punia, argued that such rejection is arbitrary and inequitable as his client is entitled to a family pension for the entire period of her husband’s service.
• He further argues that the bar under the mentioned government instruction cannot override the legal entitlement of a widow to receive a pension for services provided by her husband.
• Punia emphasised that such denial amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice, equity, and settled legal precedents recognising dual service pension claims.
• It was submitted that the claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension for the period 1963-1978, in addition to the pension already sanctioned by the other employer, is legally valid and the authority concerned cannot deny her rightful entitlement based on government instructions issued in 1977.

• On the contrary, advocate Arvind Seth, representing the authority concerned, argued that the government instructions of 1977 mention that any government servant absorbed in a public sector undertaking would have no liability for family pension from the previous employer.
• He further mentioned that the request of the petitioner for the grant of family pension from the urban estate department was rightly rejected.
• Seth further mentioned that the rules relating to family pension, if any, of the organisation will be applicable, in which the concerned government employee was/is working at the time of retirement or at the time of death while in service.

Background

• It was placed on record that the government employee initially served in the urban estate department from 1963 to 1978 and was subsequently sent on deputation and permanently absorbed in HUDA, where he served from 1978 until his retirement in 2003.
• The petitioner mentioned that her husband was drawing two pro-rata pensions for his services.
• However, after the husband died in 2023, the petitioner was sanctioned family pension from only one employer (HSVP), while her claim for family pension from the Urban Estate Department was rejected through a 2024 order citing a government instruction of 1977, which allegedly barred the grant of family pension in such cases.