CR No.4720 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4720 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 13-12-2010 Surinder Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.J.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Arora, Advocate for the respondent no.3. Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The dispute as raised by the petitioner in the instant petition is that she being the widow of Late Sh. Rajesh Kumar who was constable with the Haryana Police who died and on account of his death, the family pension and other retiral benefits was to be released to her. She then filed a civil suit claiming family pension and all other benefits accruing on account of death of her husband. Respondent no.3 is her mother in law who disputed the right of the petitioner to get the family pension and other benefits accruing on account of death of her son. The civil suit was dismissed and an appeal followed which was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre at Karnal and wherein the petitioner gave a statement that the entire benefits be given to respondent no.3 and the appeal was withdrawn. CR No.4720 of 2010 (O&M) 2 On the report sent by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Karnal the Additional District Judge, Karnal passed the following order against which the petitioner has come up in revision petition:- “ Settlement has been arrived at between the parties. As per the settlement, the appellant has made a statement withdrawing the appeal. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed as withdrawn. File be completed and consigned to the record room.” Ordinarily this revision petition would have been perceived to be misconceived as the petitioner has settled the matter before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre at Karnal and was bound by the statement made therein. However, keeping in view purely the interest of justice, wherein the petitioner being a widow pleaded that her entire rights have been bartered away and she has been left with no means to sustain herself and her minor child and also keeping in view the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner would have no objection if the amount pertaining to the GPF, GIS, gratuity etc which comes to more than Rs.2 lakhs is given to her mother in law – respondent no.3 and the family pension and financial assistance is given to the petitioner , this Court deemed it appropriate to issue notice of motion on 30.9.2010. The parties are present in Court today and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels. Respondent no.3 unequivocally states that she accepts the offer made by the petitioner and the family pension be released to the petitioner and she will be content and satisfied with the amount of GPF, gratuity etc CR No.4720 of 2010 (O&M) 3 which may be released to her. An affidavit to this extent has also been filed in the Court today which is taken on record. The wishes of parties have been ascertained separately and they acceded to the new arrangement that the petitioner will retain the benefits of family pension and financial assistance whereas other benefits will be disbursed to respondent no.3. The parties agreed that the entire matter be disposed of in these terms. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order which was passed on the efforts made by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Karnal requires partial modification to mean that the petitioner shall retain the amount on account of family pension and financial assistance which shall be disbursed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 while the remaining amount of GPF, GIS, gratuity etc. shall be disbursed to respondent no.3. Statement of the parties have been recorded separately. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass a fresh order and incorporate the same in the decree in view of the terms of settlement and thereafter the Appellate Court may grant an appropriate direction to the State – respondents no.1 and 2 to do the needful in the backdrop of the aforesaid observations within a stipulated period. Disposed of. December 13, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge