IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 CWP-11085-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 11, 2026 Rani Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Akshay Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the family pension of the petitioner which has been stopped w.e.f. October, 2017. Further it is prayed that all the arrears of Family Pension till date be paid to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% p.a.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the husband of the petitioner was employed as a Class-IV employee under respondent No. 4 and expired in harness on 03.09.2013. Consequent upon his demise, the petitioner was sanctioned and released family pension w.e.f. September 2013. However, the disbursement of the said family pension came to be discontinued abruptly w.e.f. November 2017, sans issuance of any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, on the ostensible premise that she had contracted a remarriage. The said allegation, it is vehemently contended, remains unsubstantiated till date. It is further urged that during the pendency of the instant writ proceedings, the respondents have released the arrears of family pension and the petitioner is presently in receipt of regular monthly family pension. Nevertheless, the subsisting grievance of the petitioner is restricted to the non-payment of interest on account of the inordinate and unexplained delay in release of the arrears. Learned counsel contends that such delay per se entitles the petitioner to interest in view of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.)

vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343

3. Learned counsel further submits that on the date of death of the petitioner’s husband, neither any departmental/disciplinary proceedings nor any judicial proceedings were pending against him, nor was any charge- sheet ever issued. In the absence of any pending proceedings, the action of the respondents in withholding the retiral/terminal benefits is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the retiral dues i.e. family pension along with arrears, have since been disbursed to the petitioner. However, he is unable to controvert the factual position that there has been an inordinate delay in release thereof and that the family pension remained withheld from November 2017 onwards. He also does not dispute that the controversy involved herein stands squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment rendered in A.S. Randhawa (supra).

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the pleadings as well as the record produced, with their able assistance. The admitted factual matrix that emerges is that the petitioner’s husband, while serving under respondent No. 4, died in harness on 03.09.2013, whereafter the petitioner was granted family pension w.e.f. September 2013. The said pension was, however, discontinued abruptly w.e.f. November 2017.

6. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the arrears of family pension have been released and the petitioner is presently receiving regular pension. The lis, thus, survives in a narrow compass, confined to the claim of interest on the delayed disbursement of arrears. The issue is no longer res integra. The case of the petitioner is squarely governed by the dictum of the Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa (supra), wherein it has been authoritatively enunciated that pension and retir