High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23436/2015disposed of

Kiran Devi v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2018-12-06Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-23436-2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-23436-2015 Date of decision: - 06.12.2018 Kiran Devi ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anju Arora, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a legal heir of Sh. Soni Lal, claiming the pensionary benefits alongwith interest.

Counsel for the parties are agreed that even prior to the filing of the writ petition, the amount had already been released to husband of the petitioner.

Counsel for the respondents states that there was no intentional delay on their part and it was only due the circumstances, that the payment was made late in respect of GPF amount and GIS as husband of the petitioner unfortunately passed away in July, 2012, immediately within two months of his retirement.

NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.14 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-23436-2015 -2Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the ground raised by the respondents, he will consult his client and in case, there is any need to claim the interest, the petitioner will file the representation with the respondents giving out the details as to whether, she is entitled for the interest keeping in view the laid down by this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 and J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355. In case, a representation is filed by the petitioner claiming the interest giving out the details, the respondents shall decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation by passing a speaking order.

Counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is an illiterate and in case, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any payment which has not been released for which her husband is entitled for, the same issue shall also be mentioned in the representation. Allowed to do so.

It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case and the claim being made in the present writ petition or the representation to be filed by the petitioner before the respondents.

Present writ petition stands disposed of.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) December 06, 2018 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.14 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh