Tushar Gill v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.05.2026 Tushar Gill ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:

Mr. Mehul Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner (through V.C.).

NAMIT KUMAR , J.

1.

Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice/objections dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-6) (wrongly mentioned as 21.10.2023), issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India asking the petitioner to submit certain documents. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the officialrespondents to grant family pension along with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that his mother, namely, Sneh Lata was working as a Lecturer in a Government School and she unfortunately died during service on 28.05.2014; lateron father of the petitioner also expired on 11.02.2020. Petitioner was made nominee by his father during his lifetime. Petitioner and his sister are the only legal heirs of Ms. Sneh Lata. Petitioner served a legal notice dated

12.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) upon the respondents for grant of family pension to the petitioner along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum thereon. As the said legal notice was not replied to by the respondents, sister of the petitioner, namely, Twisha filed CWP-20659 of 2025 - Twisha v. State of Punjab and others, which was disposed of by a Co-ordiante Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.08.2025 (Annexure P-3), with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 12.05.2025 within a period of four months. The petitioner has filed instant writ petition against the notice dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-6) (wrongly mentioned as 21.10.2023), issued by respondent No.4-Bank asking the petitioner to submit drawl application and NAC for the purpose of starting the pension. 3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paperbook.

4.

It is evident from the record that respondent No.4-Bank had required the petitioner to furnish certain necessary documents i.e. a drawl application and a NAC, for processing the claim of family pension. Instead of complying with the said requirements and submitting the requisite documents, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents. Earlier also, the sister of the petitioner had filed writ petition i.e. CWP-20659 of 2025, raising same prayer for sanctioning the family pension on account of death of her mother in equal shares in favour of the Twisha (sister of the petitioner) and present petitioner and the same was

disposed of vide order dated 20.08.2025, with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice within a period of four months. However, instead of furnishing the requisite documents to the respondent-Bank, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present second writ petition, claiming similar relief seeking to bypass the procedural requirements.

5.

The action of the respondent-Bank in requiring submission of the drawl application and NAC cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Such requirements are part of the administrative process intended to ensure proper identification of the claimant, ascertainment of entitlement, and avoidance of conflicting claims, if any. The claim of the petitioner has not been rejected by the respondent-Bank. Rather, the same is pending consideration subject to submission of requisite documents. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.

6.

The petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in accordance with law. 01.05.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) R.S.

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No