In a significant ruling that clarifies the rights of legal heirs, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly stated that the government cannot retain or let any part of a family pension lapse when one beneficiary's eligibility ceases. The court ordered the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to release the full 100% family pension, along with all pending arrears, to a widow, establishing that the state's role is merely to disburse and not to appropriate the pension.
Court Rejects State's Attempt to Withhold Pension
The core issue before the High Court was whether a widow was entitled to the entire family pension after the children from her husband's first marriage became ineligible upon reaching a certain age. The court, in its judgment, held that family pension constitutes an estate of the legal heirs of the deceased government employee. The apportionment of this pension among eligible heirs is not the state's concern.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who passed the order, emphasized, "The government's role is limited to identifying the eligible legal heirs as on the date of the employee's death and disbursing the full family pension to them." The judgment further clarified that where only one heir remains eligible, that person is entitled to receive the pension in its entirety.
The Case of Vidya Vati vs PSPCL
The petition was filed by Vidya Vati, the legally wedded wife of late PSPCL employee Shiv Chand. She sought to overturn a PSPCL order from February 10, 2023, which had rejected her claim for the full pension. Her husband's first wife had passed away in 1997, and he married Vidya Vati in 1999. Following Shiv Chand's death while in service in 2014, the family pension was initially split equally between Vidya Vati and the eligible son from the first marriage.
The crucial turn came on May 1, 2019, when the stepson turned 25 and ceased to be eligible for the pension. Despite this, PSPCL continued to pay Vidya Vati only 50% of the pension, citing rules related to a "dual family" under the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The petitioner argued that she should receive the full pension from that date onwards.
Court's Firm Stand on Heirs' Rights
The High Court firmly rejected PSPCL's interpretation of Rule 6.17(4). It reiterated that the pension is the legal heir's estate and the state cannot act as a beneficiary. "The state cannot usurp or withhold any portion of family pension under the guise of administrative rules," the court observed, declaring the restriction of the pension to 50% as arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
In a powerful observation, Justice Brar stated, "The state cannot, under the guise of administrative rules, appropriate or withhold any portion of the family pension on the ground that other potential heirs from a previous marriage ceased to be eligible. The right to receive family pension devolves according to the personal law of succession... and the State's function is merely to act as a conduit."
Directives and Implications
The court has directed PSPCL to calculate and release the withheld 50% pension arrears within three months. Furthermore, the power utility must continue paying the full family pension to Vidya Vati thereafter. This judgment sets a clear precedent, protecting the financial rights of surviving family members and limiting the state's authority to interfere in the disbursement of pension benefits once the eligible heirs are identified.
