CWP-28479-2018

-1-

219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

***

CWP-28479-2018

Date of Decision: 27.01.2023

Uma Devi

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:

Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

, J.

(ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or

direction especially in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents

to release the retirement benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case

where one Phool Chand son of Chokelal Kashyap retired as Supervisor from

Ranjit Sagar Dam Workshop at Shahpur Kandi, Pathankot and he was

earlier married with one Santosh Kashyap but the aforesaid Santosh

Kashyap had died on 08.05.1993, thereafter, the petitioner-Uma Devi

solemnized marriage with the aforesaid Phool Chand in the year 1994 and in

this way, the petitioner became the legally wedded wife of the aforesaid

Phool Chand. He further submitted that thereafter a matrimonial dispute

arose between the petitioner and the aforesaid Phool Chand and in this

BHUMIKA BHATI

2023.02.03 17:24

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-28479-2018

-2-

regard, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance in which a dispute arose as to

whether the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the aforesaid Phool

Chand or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Ration

Card (Annexure P-3) in this regard and has also submitted that vide

Annexure P-4 when the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure was decided by the learned Principal Magistrate, Family Court,

Jhansi on 01.10.2015, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion and

it was so observed and held that the petitioner, namely, Smt. Uma Devi is

the legally wedded wife of Phool Chand and her son, namely, Happy is the

legitimate child/issue of Phool Chand. Thereafter, from the salary of Phool

Chand, the maintenance amount was also deducted by way of the aforesaid

order for some time. Phool Chand retired on 31.08.2016 and he received all

the pensionary benefits which accrued to him regarding which there is no

dispute. However, since the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife of

the aforesaid Phool Chand was entitled for family pension, she represented

to the State Government for release of the family pension and also issued a

legal notice which was replied by the State vide Annexure P-9 in which it

was stated that the Government is helpless in granting family pension to the

petitioner because there is no information to the Department regarding the

dispute between Phool Chand and the petitioner-Uma Devi or any order of

the Court and also on the ground that as per the pension papers submitted by

the aforesaid Phool Chand, he has stated that his legal nominee should be

his son, namely, Nitin Kumar Kashyap.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

BHUMIKA BHATI

2023.02.03 17:24

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-28479-2018

-3-

although no order has been passed by any authority till date but a perusal of

the aforesaid reply to the legal notice would show that there was no ground

available with the Department to have not granted the benefit of family

pension to the petitioner on the ground that there was no information with

regard to the aforesaid judgment which was granted in favour of the

petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. So far as the other ground stated

in the reply to legal notice that the aforesaid Phool Chand has given the

name of his son as his legal heir, it is also not sustainable b