IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 23.12.2025

VIDYA VATI …..PETITIONER

Vs.

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

…..RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishab Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

***

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release 100% family pension along with arrears in favour of the petitioner, from the date when the department has stopped 50% pension of her son i.e. from 01.05.2019, being legally wedded wife of deceased Sh. Shiv Chand, as the petitioner is fully eligible and entitled for the same. Further prayer for quashing of order dated 10.02.2023 vide which the claim of the petitioner has been declined and lastly petitioner is entitled for release of interest @ 9% from the date, when

it became due till its realization.

On 02.12.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:-

“Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 09.09.2025 on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner’s husband had died in the year 1997 and that the petitioner’s case suffered from delay and latches.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner further submits that the factual position recorded in the order regarding the death of the petitioner’s husband is incorrect. The petitioner’s husband had died on 14.08.2014 and not in the year 1997 and therefore there is no delay in approaching this Court. The petitioner’s claim was rejected on 10.02.2023 and the instant writ petition was filed within a month thereafter. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Savita Rani vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others passed in CWP-18783-2022 decided on 18.11.2025.

Notice in the application.

Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and seeks time to address arguments.

Adjourned to 23.12.2025.”

Learned counsel for the respondent-corporation is not in a position to controvert the fact that the husband of the petitioner had died on 14.08.2014 and not in the year 1997 and claim of the petitioner was rejected on 10.02.2023 and the instant writ petition was filed within a month thereafter.

In view of the admitted facts and circumstances of the case reasons the review application is allowed and the order dated 09.09.2025 is recalled and the same was not decided on merits rather it was dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches.

Main case

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, died in harness on 14.08.2014. Petitioner is the second wife of the deceased husband-Shiv Chand who was earlier married to Smt. Lal Muni Devi who died on 25.06.1997 and three children were born out of their wedlock. Thereafter, the petitioner and deceased husband solemnized marriage on 28.06.1999. The marriage of the petitioner with Sh. Shiv Chand was legal and valid, and after examining the veracity of credentials of the petitioner, she was given appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, death certificate of the first wife of the deceased husband Smt. Lal Muni Devi is available on record as Annexure P-2. After the demise of husband of the petitioner family pension was started in the year 2015 out of which 50% pension was granted to the petitioner and remaining 50% pension as granted to Sh. Surinder Kumar, younger son from the first wife. Sh. Surinder Kumar was the only eligible child of the deceased employee whereas other two sons namely Satinder Kumar and Harinder Kumar were not eligible for grant of pension as they had already attained the age of 25 years. After Sh. Sur