CWP No.12872 of 2005.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12872 of 05 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.04.2010 **** Rampyari . . . . Petitioner (through LR Pehlad) VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This writ petition was originally filed by Smt. Rampyari - widow of late Sh. Suraj Bhan s/o Sh. Patram, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant her ‘family pension’ under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 framed by the erstwhile State of Punjab. (2). The case as pleaded by the petitioner is that her husband, namely, Suraj Bhan s/o Patram was in the Punjab Police in the pre-Independence era. He retired from service w.e.f. 15.09.1943 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner’s husband was a recipient of the Superannuatory Pension which he continued to draw till he passed away on 29.11.1968. CWP No.12872 of 2005.doc - 2 – (3). The erstwhile State of Punjab framed a Family Pension Scheme in the year, 1964, inter alia, providing that the family pension will be admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement, if at the time of death the retired officer was in receipt of superannuatory pension etc. As per the Scheme, ‘family pension’ was admissible provided that the deceased employee had worked continuously for one year. (4). The petitioner further averred that after the death of her husband Suraj Bhan, she was entitled to get the ‘family pension’ under the Rules but has been denied the same in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. In para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner avers herself to be a nonagenarian woman, suffering from multi-ailments and that denial of ‘family pension’ in these circumstances amounted to denial of her right to live with dignity. (5). Unfortunately, the petitioner is said to have passed away during the pendency of this writ petition on 06.09.2005 and her son, namely, Pehlad has got himself impleaded as her legal representative. (6). The respondents in their counter-affidavit have come up with an innocuous plea that “no records are traceable to ascertain as to whether or not late Suraj Bhan s/o Patram was employed with the Punjab Police CWP No.12872 of 2005.doc - 3 – and/or he superannuated from service w.e.f. 15.09.1943? (7). In order to substantiate her claim, the petitioner has placed on record a certificate dated 17.01.2005 (Annexure P1) issued by the Treasury Officer, Gurgaon which reads as follow:- “CERTIFICATE No.1361 dt. 17.1.05 Certified that Sh. Suraj Bhan s/o Patram holder of PPO No.78518/Punjab R/o Village Kosli Thana Salawas Distt. Rohtak pension w.e.f. 15.9.1943 made payable at Rewari Sub Treasury Office @ Rs.10/- is entered index Register PPO File No.28 as per this office record. Sd/- Treasury Officer, Gurgaon” (8). Similarly, the Pension Payment Order bearing No.78518 (Annexure P2) issued in favour of late Sh. Suraj Bhan s/o Sh. Pat Ram of Village Kosli, Thana Salawas District Rohtak in terms whereof, a monthly pension of Rs.10/-, was payable w.e.f. 15.09.1943 at Sub-Treasury, Rewari is also on record. (9). Having heard ld. Counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that a few official documents placed on record do indicate that late Suraj Bhan husband of Smt. Rampyari was recipient of Superannuatory pension. The fact that the petitioner, till she was alive, had a recurring cause of action and, thus, the delay in CWP No.12872 of 2005.doc - 4 – approaching the Court cannot be fatal to the claim put forth by her and also with a view to afford reasonable opportunity to the respondents to ascertain the correct facts regarding the petitioner’s claim through a fact finding enquiry, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- i. the State of Punjab shall appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct a fact-finding enquiry, who may visit different offices including the Treasury Offices at Rewari and Gurgaon etc. in order to find out as to whether late Suraj Bhan s/o Patram r/o village Kosli, Thana Salawas of the then District Rohtak, was a recipient of the Superannuatory pension in lieu of the services rendered by him in the erstwhile Punjab Police; ii. the Enquiry Officer shall also verify as to who are/were the legal representative(s) of late Sh. Suraj Bhan including the status of Smt. Rampyari; iii. The Deputy Commissioners of Gurgaon, Rewari and Rohtak are directed to provide prompt and all possible administrative assistance to the Enquiry Officer for the time-bound conclusion of the fact- finding enquiry; CWP No.12872 of 2005.doc - 5 – iv. The Enquiry Officer shall submit his report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; v. In case the Enquiry Officer finds that late Suraj Bhan was recipient of Superannuatory pension and the petitioner was his widow, in that event the respondent are directed to calculate arrears of the ‘family pension’ admissible to late Smt. Rampyari till her death and release the same to her legal representative, whose identity shall also be verified by the Enquiry Officer; vi. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of submission of Enquiry Report. (10). Ordered accordingly. (11). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 05.04.2010 vishal shonkar