inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parsani Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 January, 2026
1
CWP-1423--2019 & 15396-2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219
Date of Decision: 29.01.2026
1) CWP-1423-2019
Uma Devi
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Managing Director, UHBVNL and others
..Respondents
2) CWP-15396-2020
0
Parsani Devi
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate
with Mr. Prajjwal Jaiswal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1423
1423-2019.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Bharadwaj, Advocate
with Ms. Radha Bhardwaj, Advocate
and Mr. Vaidaant Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-15396
15396-2000.
Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, Addl. AG Haryana.
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
with Mr. Shubham Malik, Advocate
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 20:40:17 :::
2
CWP-1423--2019 & 15396-2000
for the respondents in CWP-1423
1423-2019.
Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP
CWP-15396-2000.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior Adv
Advocate
with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.4 and 5 in CWP
CWP-15396-2020.
***
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the
abovementioned petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix and
pose a common question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts
are taken from CWP-1423-2019.
CWP
2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article
Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to restore family pension
in favour of the petitioner and grant arrears of family pension to her along
with interest.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The petitioner was married to Alam Singh, who worked as an
Assistant Lineman with the respondent-Corporation.
respondent Corporation. Two children were also
born out of this wedlock namely, Laxman Singh, son and Neema, daughter.
Unfortunately, Alam Singh died on 16.07.1988. As pe
perr the prevailing
customs, the petitioner was remarried to Anand Singh, the brother of the
deceased on 06.11.1990. The petitioner also moved a petition under Section
10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which was allowed by the learned
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
3
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
Guardian Court, Rohtak
Rohtak vide order dated 16.07.1994 (Annexure P
P-1)
1)
holding that the petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor children and
is therefore, entitled to draw pensionary benefits on their behalf.
4. The family pension was first allowed in favour of the son of the
petitioner up to 06.09.2007, as indicated by letter dated 11.08.2003
(Annexure P-2).
P 2). Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation to the
respondent–Corporation
Corporation seeking transfer of family pension in favour of her
daughter as her son had attained the age of 25 years resulting in stoppage of
pension w.e.f. 07.09.2007. In response to the same, the daughter of the
petitioner was granted family pension vide letter dated 01.10.2007
(Annexure P-3).
P 3). Subsequently, the daughter of the petitioner submitted an
application dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure P-
P-4)
4) to stop family pension as she
had gotten married on 24.02.2012.
5. Consequently, the petitioner urged the concerned authorities to
grant her the said family pension, however, to no avail. The petitioner serv
served
ed
a legal notice (Annexure P-5)
P 5) on the respondent
respondent-Corporation
Corporation stating therein
that the remarriage to the brother of the deceased would not disentitle her
from grant of family pension. Since the claim of the petitioner was not
accepted, the present writ petition
petition was filed.
CONTENTIONS
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been denied family pension only for the reason of her customary
remarriage to the brother of the deceased employee. The petitioner has not
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
4
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
remarried into a new family but remains a member of the family of the
deceased. He relies upon the judgments rendered by respective Division
Benches of this Court in Kamaljit Kaur vs. Union of India 1998(1) SCT
312 and Kiran Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2004 (1) SCT 650 to contend
that widows remarried to the family of their deceased husband are entitled to
family pension as their dependency remains in alignment with the need of
the family of the deceased. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K.
Mastan Bee vs. The General Manager, South Central Railway 2003(1)
SCT 367 has held that the employer cannot take advantage of illiteracy of
the destitute dependents to reject their claim and, is obliged to compute and
disburse family pension at the earliest.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 submits
that Rule 4(iii)(a) of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964
1964- Appendix I of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana
and Rule 8(10)(B) of the Haryana
Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, as
applicable w.e.f. 19.07.2016 provides that a widow is entitled to family
pension only up to the date of her remarriage. Initially, the family pension
was released in favour of the petitioner herself vide PPO dated 21.11.1988
issued vide memo dated 01.12.1988 (Annexure R
R-2).
2). However, the
petitioner had remarried on 06.11.1990 and since karewa marriage is a valid
marriage under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in terms of the
judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Darbara Singh vs. Jaswant
Kaur 2014 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 1004, her entitlement to family pension ceased
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
5
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
to exist from the day she got remarried. In fact, the petitioner had requested
for grant of family pension being the guardian of her minor children from
the first marriage. Notably, the petitioner also moved the learned Guardian
Court to be declared guardian of her minor
minor children in order to be eligible to
receive family pension on their behalf. Further, the judgment rendered in
Kamaljit Kaur (supra) and Kiran Kumar(supra) are not applicable to the
present case as they deal with entirely different facts and circumstance
circumstancess that
neither involve the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 nor the Family
Pension Scheme, 1964.
OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case with their able ass
assistance,
istance, it transpires that the
petitioner had solemnised a karewa marriage with Anand Singh, the younger
brother of her deceased husband-
husband Alam Singh. The petitioner was initially
granted family pension in her own name however, subsequently, the same
was credited
redited to her in the name of her minor children. Now that the son of
the petitioner has crossed the age of 25 years and the daughter stands
married, the family pension has been stopped as a whole.
9. Oftentimes, retiral benefits are the only ssource
ource of income for many
families, especially when the primary breadwinner has passed away. The kin
of the retired/deceased
retired employees not only rely on the same for fiscal
security but also for their very survival. It was also observed in D.K. Nakara
hers vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 that pension and retiral
and others
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
6
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
benefits are not bounty by nature but in fact, are akin to wages, relied upon
the pensioner and his family for assistance
assistance. The entitlement to a dignified
and secure life as illustrated in D.K. Nakara (supra) must be applied with
greater force to family pension, as the same is only granted when an earning
member of the family passes away, leaving his dependents at risk for
destitution.
10. Furthermore, the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, is not limited to mere animal -like existence but
includes the right to live a dignified meaningful life. The Hon’ble Supreme
preme
Court in Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608 has opined that any act offend
offending
ing human dignity
constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
India.. It was
further clarified that bare necessities such as “adequate nutrition, clothing
ng
and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing
oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling
with fellow human beings”
beings as well as any other activities constituting a
“bare
bare minimum expression of human self,
self,” subject to the degree ofeconomic development of the State, form a part and parcel of right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As such, family pension too is
a social security
security measure flowing from the vision for a Welfare State ashighlighted by Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a), and 41 of the Constitution of India.
Disqualification for the reason of Karewa marriage
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
7CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
11. Before delving further into the controversy at hand
hand,, it must be
understood that karewa marriages i.e. remarriage of a widow to the brother
of her deceased husband, serve a social purpose. This customary practice,
which also stands recognised in terms of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, aid in providing patronage to minor children, preserving dignity
of widows and ensuring continuity of care for aged parents. Upon such
remarriage, the paternity of the children is also established from within the
blood relatives, who are more likely to raise them with genuine care and
affection. Moreover, the ties between the widow, her children and the
matrimonial family are not severed by the death of her first husband. Since
the matrimonial family is called upon to shoulder the moral responsibility of
their well-being,
being, this custom also assists in the social and financial
rehabilitation of widows and their children.
12. The Service Rules often proscribe a remarried widow from
claiming family pension but the legislative intent behind the same is not
punitive but redistributive. The assumption at work therein is that her new
family now bears the responsibility for her financial and social well
well-being,
being,
and thus, she is no longer dependent on the estate of her deceased first
husband. With that in mind, the
the benefits are redirected to the children and
parents of the deceased employee as financial support must follow actual
vulnerability.
13. In that context, it appears that the petitioner has continued living
a communal life with the family of
of her deceased first husband even after the
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
8
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
solemnisation of her marriage with Anand Singh, the brother of the
deceased. However, considering that the petitioner remained an active
member of the family of her deceased first husband, it cannot be assumed
that
hat her connection with the family of the deceased has been severed.
Rather, upon such remarriage, there has been no fragmentation of the
financial responsibilities as the children remain under the same guardianship
structure and the aged parents reside in the same household. Therefore, a
strict and mechanical disqualification would amount to overlooking social
reality to make good an administrative technicality, thereby defeating the
beneficial nature of the provisions for family pension.
14. Thus, the customary practice of karewa marriage cannot be
interpreted as remarriage in the manner envisaged by the Service Rules,
rather, apparently, it has a harmonising effect thereon. The petitioner ought
not to be punished merely for remarrying when hher
er subsequent marriage has
not resulted in her unjust enrichment at the cost of other dependents of her
deceased first husband. The State, being a model employer, must stay alive
to the social realities and endeavour to balance equity with the statutory
mandate,
ndate, particularly when it is clear that a custom such as karewa marriage
is in harmony with the settled law. In fact, the relevance of karewa
marriages has also been recognised by the State of Punjab by amending Rule
8.35 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules
Rules Volume II vide notification dated
28.05.1975, that reads as follows:
“3. In the said rules in rule 8.35 in sub
sub-rule
rule (2), clause (i) shall be
renumbered as sub-clause
sub clause (a), of that clause and after sub
sub-clause
clause (a)8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
9CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
as so renumbered, the following sub sub-clause shall be inserted,
namely:
namely:-
“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub clause (A) a
widow who remarries her deceased husband’s brother and
continues to live a communal life or contributed to the support
of other dependents of her deceased’s husband shall nnot ot be
disqualified for the grant of extra ordinary pension, otherwise
admissible to her under these rules.”
15. Furthermore, considering the benevolent nature and purpose of
the very provision of family pension, efforts must be made towards
harmonious construction than otherwise. Moreover, the notification dated
17.04.2009 issued by the Government of Haryana allows for special
considerations to be made in order to prevent undue hardship in particular
cases. The relevant provisions are reproduced
reproduced below:
“Residuary
Residuary provisions
21. In the event of any general or special circumstances which is not
covered under these rules or about which certain inconsistencies are
noticed, the matter shall be referred to the Government and the
Government will prescribe
prescribe the conditions to be followed under such
circumstances. Such conditions as prescribed by the Government
under this paragraph shall be deemed to be part of these rules.
Further, if the Government is satisfied that there is a requirement to
prescribe certain additional conditions, the Government shall
prescribe such conditions and such additional condi tions as
prescribed by the Government under this para, shall be deemed to be
the part of these rules.
Power to relax
22.. Where the Government is satisfied
satisfied that the operation of all or any
of the provisions of these rules causes undue hardship in any
particular case, it may, by order, dispense with or relax the
requirements of these rules to such extent and subject to such
conditions as it may consider necessary
necessary for dealing with the case in a
just and equitable manner.”
manner.
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
10
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
Moreover, a Two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Deepika Singh vs. 834,, has
v . Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 INSC 834
also insisted upon adopting a liberal approach while interpreting beneficial
policies. Speaking
Speaking through Dr. Justice. Dhananjaya Y
Y. Chandrachud,
Chandrachud
observed as follows:
“15. The provisions of Rule 43(1) must be imbued with a purposive
construction. In KH Nazar v. Mathew K Jacob, (2020) 14 SCC
126 this Court
Court noted that beneficial legislation must be given a liberal
approach:
“11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed
with a purpose-oriented
oriented approach. The Act should receive a
liberal construction to promote its objects. Also, literal
construction
nstruction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation has to
be avoided. It is the court’s duty to discern the intention of the
legislature in making the law. Once such an intention is
ascertained, the statute should receive a purposeful or
functional interpretation.
12. In the words of O. Chinnappa Reddy, J., the principles of
statutory construction of beneficial legisla
legislation
tion are as follows:
follows
(Workmen case, SCC p. 76, para 4)
“4. The principles of statutory construction are well
settled. Words occurring iin n statutes of liberal import
such as “social welfare legislation and human rights”
legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or
shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions. In construing these
legislation’s the imposture of literal construction must be
avoidedd and the prodigality of its misapplication must be
recognised and reduced. Judges ought to be more
concerned with the “colour”, the “content” and the
“context” of such statutes (we have borrowed the words
from Lord Wilberforce’s opinion in Prenn v.
Simmonds [Prenn v. Simmonds, (1971) 1 WLR 1381 :
(1971) 3 All ER 237 (HL)] ). In the same opinion Lord
Wilberforce pointed out that law is not to be left behind
in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquire
beyond the language, un un-isolated from the matrix of
facts in which they are set; the law is not to be
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
11
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
interpreted purely on internal linguistic considerations.
In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra
Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal- Tribunal
cum-Labour Court , we had occasion to say : (Surendra
Kumar Verma case, SCC p. 447, para 6)
“6. .. Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the
interpretation of “bread and butter” statutes.
Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad
interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give
giv
relief against certain kinds of mischief, the court is
not to make inroads by making etymological
excursions.? “
13. While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief that the
statute was designed to remedy should first be identified and then a
construction that suppresses the problem and advance
advancess the remedy
should be adopted.”
(emphasis added)
16. It must also be emphasised that the right to family pension is not
vested in a widow alone but typically flows to all immediate dependents of a
deceased employee. As such, the dependents, when possible, must be
allowed to be treated as a unit as their lives are not untethered from each
other. On that note, disqualifying the petitioner from availing family pension
would also jeopardise
jeopardise the rights of any surviving dependents of her deceased
first husband.
Recovery of excessive disbursement
17. Further, in CWP-1423-2019,
CWP 2019, an additional issue has been raised
that pertains to initiation of recovery proceedings from excessive
disbursement of family pension. The petitioner
petitioner-Prasani
Prasani Devi had been
receiving family pension on behalf of her minor daughter
daughter-Kiran
Kiran Devi with
effect from June 1988. As per impugned order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
12
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
P-1
1 in CWP-1423-2019)
CWP 2019) the family pension granted to Kiran Devi was
supposed to stop w.e.f. 24.11.1996. However, the respondent
respondent-Bank
Bank
continued to disburse the same up till August, 2019 resulting in
disbursement of an additional amount of Rs.12,66,082/
Rs.12,66,082/-,, beyond their
entitlement.
18. Admittedly, the additional sum was not disbursed on account of
any misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioner or her daughter. This
Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner
petitioner-Prasani
Prasani Devi is a
rustic woman, who was under the impression
impression that the family pension is
being disbursed to her personally, and not on behalf of her daughter, no
mala fide can be attributed to her. Moreover, the concerned respondents
realised the factum of excessive disbursement over two decades later. As
such,
uch, the respondents have no locus to demand reimbursement for the same
from the petitioner or her daughter at such a belated stage.
19. It is settled law that if there is no misrepresentation or fraud on
part of the pensioner, any excess payment made to him/her cannot be made
subject to recovery. In Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, 2022
722 a two-Judge
(2) SCT 722, Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking
through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, observed as follows:
“9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if
the excess amount was not paid on account of any
misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess
payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle
for calculating the
the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular
interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be
erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
13CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not
because of any right
right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial
discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that
will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held
that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge
that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly
paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short
time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial
discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any
particular case order for recovery of amount paid in
excess.”
(emphasis added)
added
20. Further, the Hon’ble
Hon ble Supreme Court has categorically held in
vs. Rafiq Masih 2015(1) SCT 195 that recovery of any
State of Punjab vs.
excess amount from a pensioner, for a period beyond 05 years, is
impermissible in law. As such, the settled principle of law can also be
extended to cases pertaining to excess payment made towards family
pension. The petitioner-
petitioner Parsani Devi was receiving the family pension for
decades under a bona fide belief with respect to her entitlement. The
respondents cannot paint a picture depicting that the petitioner has
accumulated a large sum by virtue of the excessive payment made by the
respondents. While the claim for recovery fails both in law and in equity,
however, in the present case, once the petitioner
petitioner- Parsani Devi is found
entitled to family pension, the excess payment made to her can be adjusted
from
m the arrears of the family pension.
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
14
CWP-1423–2019 & 15396-2000
CONCLUSION
21. In view of the discussion above, both the abovementioned writ
petitions are allowed in the following manner:
(i) The concerned authority/respondent(s) are directed to reinstate
the family pension of the respective petitioners as karewa
marriage cannot be equated to remarriage for the limited
purpose of grant of family pension. As such, the petitioners are
not disqualified
qualified by the applicable Rules.
(ii) The impugned order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P
P-1) in CWP-
CWP
15396-2020 is hereby set aside. It is clarified that any excess
payment made to the petitioner
petitioner- Prasani Devi can be adjusted
against the family pension granted to her upon favourable
consideration.
22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
23. Photocopy of this order be place on the file of connected case.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
29.01.2026
PC
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether reportable. : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:40:18 :::
