122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2026 Machoro Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Vrinda Katoch, Advocate for Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Hunarveer Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The 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 certiorari for quashing the impugned speaking order No.8591 dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure P-4). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant/release the complete pensionary service benefits including the family pension along with interest for the delayed payment on account of death of husband of the petitioner, to grant better gratuity benefits as per the Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984 for the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner with the respondent-Department, to grant enhanced amount of ex-gratia grant as per Civil Service Rules, Vol.II, Rule 2.7(b) which provides for maximum grant of Rs.2 lakh and to grant any other dues in the respondent-Department including D.A., GPF/PF deposited, leave encashment, medical allowance and arrears of increment and other arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Raj Kumar, joined as Safai Karamchari in the respondent-Council on 01.06.1984 as discernible from Annexure P-1. He died in harness on 17.02.2017 while in service. The retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner were not released. The petitioner served a legal notice on 26.07.2021 for family pension and service benefits but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.17955 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

3. In purported compliance, the respondents passed a speaking order dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) but the family pension & the benefits were not calculated as per applicable rules. The petitioner submitted another representation on 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) which remained unheeded.

4. Learned State counsel submits that all the admissible dues have been released to the petitioner and respondents No.3 & 4 have passed the resolution to award the interest which is calculated three months’ after the death of the husband of the petitioner and the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks. He further submits that as far as the claim of the petitioner for family pension is concerned, the deceased husband of the petitioner has not opted for the pension scheme. He exercised his option on

07.11.1994 and he continued to contribute till his death in the Provident Fund, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension and she cannot be allowed to re-agitate the claim which has attained finality in the year 1994.

5. The option exercised by the petitioner in terms of Rule 3 dated 07.11.1994 is produced in the Court today, which is taken on record at Mark ‘X’. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place in the file.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that all admissible dues have been paid to the petitioner and regarding interest on account of delayed payment, the resolution has already been passed by the respondents. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 submitted an undertaking before this Court that the interest, which is to be calculated after a period of three months from the date of the death of the petitioner’s late husband until actual realization, shall be calculated and paid within a period of