IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1107 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 22.02.2008 Abdul Rashid ....Petitioner(s) through Ms.Maninder Kaur, Advocate vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Mukesh Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In this civil writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patiala whereby the petitioner has been denied the benefit of revised 'special family pension' with effect from 1.1.1996. The petitioner also seeks a direction to revise the special family pension already granted to him. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner's son late Constable Nazemdin, No.2552/PTA was enlisted as a Constable in Punjab Police, District Patiala on 2.11.1989. He was unfortunately killed in a terrorist attack on 4.2.1991. In terms of the Punjab Government Instructions dated 18.5.1990, the petitioner being father of the deceased Constable and also being dependent upon him, was granted 'special family pension' at the rate of Rs.375/- per month with effect C.W.P.No.1107 of 2006 -2- from 5.2.1991. The same was later on revised and increased to Rs.1310/- with effect from 1.1.1996. The petitioner, however, claimed that he was firstly entitled to the special family pension of Rs.1075/- with effect from 4.2.1991 followed by its revision to Rs.3279/- with effect from 1.1.1996. His above-stated claim having been turned down by the third respondent vide the impugned order, that he has approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has been able to lay his hands on various orders passed by respondent No.4 i.e. the Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement), Punjab whereby benefit of higher special family pension including further revision thereof, as claimed by the petitioner, appears to have been granted to similarly situated persons. Relying upon the same, the petitioner seeks a direction for the similar relief. Mr.Mukesh Berry, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, states at the Bar that upon re-consideration of the matter, the petitioner's claim has been principally accepted and has been forwarded/recommended by the Competent Authority in terms of the Punjab Government instructions dated 23.6.2006 to the Accountant General, Punjab. In fact this very stand has been taken by the respondents in para 6 of their reply/affidavit dated 23.11.2007 filed in C.M.No.15574 of 2007. In the light of the above-stated fair stand now taken by the C.W.P.No.1107 of 2006 -3- respondents, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Otherwise also, there is hardly any plausible explanation for denying the benefits to the petitioner which have already been granted to the similarly situated persons. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, the impugned order dated 8.9.2005 is hereby quashed and in view of the fact that the petitioner's case has already been recommended to the Accountant General, Punjab for the release of revised special family pension, the respondent No.4 is directed to accord its necessary sanction within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All the consequential benefits flowing therefrom shall be paid to the petitioner within two months thereafter. Disposed of. February 22, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE C. M.No.15574 of 2007 in C.W.P.No.1107 of 2006 *** Present:- Ms.Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mukesh Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. *** The prayer in this application is to direct the respondents to grant revised special family pension to the petitioner. Notice was issued and in response thereto, the official respondents have filed their reply. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the subsequent events pointed out by learned State counsel, I am of the considered view that this application as well as the main case both can be disposed of. Accordingly, the main case is taken up on board for final disposal. Civil Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of. February 22, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE