--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No.6171 of 2010. Decided on: December 13, 2011. Amar Singh s/o Sh. Sohan Singh, r/o Vill.Patti, P.O. Rissa, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Defence to the Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Director General of Infantry, General Staff Shakha, Army Headquarters, New Delhi-11. 3. Dogra Regiment Abhilekh Karyalaya Records, The Dogra Regiment, Faizabad, U.P. …….Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, for releasing all monetary benefits of late Niak Sohan Singh. ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Jitender Ranote, Advocate, For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner by means of the present petition seeks writ of mandamus against the respondents to release all monetary benefits i.e. General Provident Funds, Gratuity, - 2 - Insurance of his late father, Niak Sohan Singh No.3933929, 16th Dogra Regiment with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts are that Niak Sohan Singh was enrolled in the Indian Army on 19.4.1948, thereafter he underwent the Basic Military Training (BMT) and on 21.7.1949 was posted in 16th Dogra Regiment. In the year 1959, he was granted 66 days annual leave w.e.f. 25.3.1959. During this period, he fell ill and was hospitalized on 23.5.1959 in Military Hospital, Palampur, where he died on 17.6.1959 because of “Typhoid Fever with Ascending Myelitis”, thus struck of Strength (SOS) w.e.f. 18.6.1959 in the rank of Paid Acting Niak. Petitioner was a minor child, therefore, now he claims the above relief. 3. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner’s father never informed the office about his marriage with Smt. Jaya Vanti and also concealed the birth of the petitioner, however, as per service record maintained by the Dogra Regiment, the parents of the - 3 - petitioner Shri Bohra and Smt. Nikki alongwith his brothers Sant Ram and Bali Ram stood recorded in the service record. Thereafter on 27.6.1959, father of Niak Sohan Singh sent a communication to the Office-Incharge of the Dogra Regiment, Meerut Cantt., stating therein that his next kin and heirs are entitled to the family pension. He also informed that Smt. Jaya Vanti petitioner’s mother had died three years ago, leaving behind the minor petitioner, aged about six months and requested to take necessary action for the grant of family pension in favour of Smt. Nikki, petitioner’s grand- mother and child allowance to the petitioner. On 24.7.1959, said Shri Bohra sent another communication (Annexure R-3) to the office of Dogra Regiment reiterating the above facts. 4. Vide letter dated 13.4.1960 (Annexure R-4) (Colly) respondents paid terminal credit to Smt. Nikki, the grandmother of the petitioner. 5. Vide order dated 21.7.2011, the details of such payments were required to be furnished by the respondents by way of supplementary - 4 - affidavit, which was filed, whereby it is stated that the family pension, terminal credit and Armed Forces Personnel Provided Fund alongwith Children Allowance was granted and stood paid vide PCDA (P), Allahabad Pension Payment Order No.F/1605 of 1960 in accordance with their Group Order No.367 dated 14.9.1959. 6. Even in reply to the legal notice sent by the petitioner, the respondents vide their letter dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P-2), sought the details from the petitioner with respect to any dues entitled but not paid, to enable them to examine the same and forward the factual position to them, which was not done. Even during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has failed to point out as to what monetary and retiral benefits were not paid and released to the legal heirs/ petitioner. 7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out as to what remains due to the petitioner, no relief can be - 5 - granted. Thus the present petition is dismissed so also the pending application(s), if any. (Surinder Singh ) Judge December 13, 2012. (Pds)