-1 Civil Writ Petition No.2334 of 2007. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: April 03 ,2008. Rajinder Kaur ... Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Gauravjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The facts of the case are that Sgt. Mukhtiar Singh, husband of petitioner Rajinder Kaur, had joined Air Force on January 04, 1957 and was on the posted strength of 9 Squadron, Air Force. He died on April 08, 1968. It is stated in the petition that Sgt. Mukhtiar Singh died due to heart -2 Civil Writ Petition No.2334 of 2007. attack while he had come to Amritsar on eight days' casual leave. The petitioner was granted ordinary family pension. The petitioner served legal notice dated August 08, 2005 (Annexure P-3) upon the respondents demanding doubling of family pension from normal pension i.e from Rs.1275/- to Rs.2550/- . This prayer of the petitioner was declined vide order dated June 09, 2006 (Annexure P-5). In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated June 09, 2006 (Annexure P-5) and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant her double family pension/special family pension. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that special family pension is granted in a case where death of an air warrior is considered as attributable to Air Force service. The petitioner was granted family pension with effect from April 09, 1968. It is further stated that service documents and medical documents were destroyed after their stipulated time of retention i.e twenty five years and fifteen years, respectively, and at present there is no document available with the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated June 09, 2006 (Annexure P- 5). As stated above, for the last more than thirty nine and a half years the petitioner is getting family pension. We do not -3 Civil Writ Petition No.2334 of 2007. find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE April 03, 2008. ak