Specially-Abled Daughter Entitled To Family Pension Despite Marriage | Income Of Husband Cannot Be Counted | Denial Based On Mechanical Grounds Decried As Against Rules
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice H. S. Grewal dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that had granted family pension to a specially-abled daughter of a deceased government servant. The Court held that under the applicable rules, the daughter was entitled to family pension irrespective of her marital status, provided she was unable to earn a livelihood due to her disability. The Court directed that if the pension had not yet been released, it should be disbursed along with interest and litigation costs.
The matter arose from a dispute over the eligibility of a specially-abled daughter to receive family pension following the death of her father, Surinder Pal, who had retired from government service on 30.06.1999 and passed away on 10.10.2014. The petitioner, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, challenged the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had allowed the daughter’s claim.
The respondent, who was the only surviving legal heir and dependent on the deceased after the passing of her mother on 19.08.2012, applied for family pension. She claimed eligibility under Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, citing her 70% disability. Initially, her application was rejected by the competent authority on 08.05.2017, on grounds that she was not dependent on her father and was married.
The authorities demanded several documents including a disability certificate, legal heir certificate, and income certificate. The income certificate was issued on 30.08.2016 by the Tehsildar, reflecting an annual household income of ₹4,22,502. The claim was rejected on the basis that the income exceeded the limit of ₹3,500 per month plus dearness relief, as per Rule 6.17(IV), Explanation (2) of the applicable rules.
Respondent No.1 challenged the rejection before the CAT, which by order dated 02.06.2016, directed the department to obtain a valid income certificate and consider her case accordingly. The OA was treated as infructuous on that basis. However, upon continued denial, she filed OA No. 060/1165/2017 before the Tribunal, assailing the subsequent rejection order dated 08.05.2017. The CAT set aside the rejection and directed the authorities to amend the pension order in line with instructions dated 28.07.2014.
The petitioners argued before the High Court that the respondent was not entitled to family pension due to her marriage and the income reflected in the certificate. They further contended that she had not submitted a proper disability certificate and that her claim was based on documents pertaining to her husband.
The respondent, however, had submitted the required documents, including medical certificates for herself and her husband, showing 70% and 100% disability respectively. She maintained that she had no personal source of income and that the income of her husband should not be considered for determining her eligibility.
The petitioners continued to rely on the income certificate to deny the claim, arguing that the income threshold for eligibility had been breached. The respondent submitted that the income in question was that of her husband, who himself was fully disabled and a government employee.
The Court recorded: “The contention that the petitioners had not submitted documents is also found to be fallacious.”
Addressing the evidence on record, the Court stated: “Smt. Poonam in her letter dated 26.03.2015 had enclosed disability certificate and again in her letter dated 13.08.2015 she has submitted medical certificates of both herself as well as her husband. She pointed out that she is 70% specially-abled and her husband who is a government servant is 100% specially-abled.”
The Court criticised the decision-making process, observing: “The Accounts Officer has acted in a mechanical manner in rejecting the claim of the applicant/respondent no.1 on the ground of earning ₹4,22,502/- per annum as the total income of respondent no.1, which actually is the salary drawn by her husband.”
On the statutory framework, the Court recorded: “As per Clause 4 and the proviso thereto of Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, if the son or daughter of a government servant is suffering from any mental disorder or is physically crippled or disabled to the extent that he or she is unable to earn a livelihood, the family pension shall be admissible to him or her even after becoming otherwise ineligible for it, irrespective of marriage.”
The Court clarified that: “Merely because she got married would make no difference.”
Regarding the financial dependency criterion, the Court stated: “The earnings of her husband cannot be said to be the earnings of the family for denying her family pension.”
In regard to the timing and nature of the disability, the Court reiterated: “Explanation (a): The disability which manifests itself before or after the retirement or death of the Government employee shall be taken into account for the purpose of grant of family pension under this rule.”
The Bench further noted the conduct of the petitioners: “We find that the approach adopted by the petitioners in denying family pension to a specially-abled daughter, who was unmarried at the time of her father’s retirement, was against the rules.”
The Court held that the respondent is entitled to receive family pension even if she gets married, in accordance with the proviso to Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The Court upheld the validity of the CAT’s order dated 27.11.2018.
It directed that if the family pension had not yet been released to the applicant/respondent no.1, it shall be released along with interest at the rate of 9% on arrears. The Court further held that the respondent is entitled to costs amounting to ₹25,000.
All pending applications in the matter were directed to stand disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate; Mr. H. S. Jugait, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Veena Kumari, Advocate
Case Title: State of U.T. Chandigarh and Others v. Poonam and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:068096-DB
Case Number: CWP No. 31102 of 2019 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice H. S. Grewal
[Read/Download order]
