IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17937of 2008 Date of decision: 31.03.2010 Smt. Om Pati ….Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ----- 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner's claim is for a mandamus for grant of family pension against respondents 1 to 4 on the ground that her husband Bhartu Ram, who was ex-Lineman, employed with the Electricity Board had died and that per the Family Pension Rules, the petitioner in her capacity as a widow of Bhartu Ram is entitled to receive the same. It transpired that the family pension had not been paid in view of conflict in claims at the instance of a person by name Yash Pal and through a proceeding in Civil Court therefore taking this contention of the Electricity Board, Yash Pal was also directed to be impleaded as a party in the writ petition. Yash Pal is represented through a counsel and he has not filed statement in spite of opportunities granted to him. 2. In view of the hardships expressed by the petitioner that her Civil Writ Petition No.17937of 2008 - 2 - claim of family pension had not been addressed only on account of obstruction caused by respondent No.5, I allowed the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 to make his submission even without the written statement. It is his contention that there are proceedings pending before the Civil Court at Guhla for issuance of a succession certificate where Yash Pal claimed that he is an adopted son of the deceased employee and he is also entitled to the family pension. The petitioner's status as a widow of Bhartu Ram itself is not in dispute. The conclusion of the proceedings for issuance of succession certificate will therefore resolve the fraction in shares of the persons that would be entitled to the family pension and cannot completely wipe away the claim of the petitioner for family pension . With no clear indication as to when the proceedings before the Civil Court shall be completed and to prevent any further hardship to the petitioner from claiming the family pension, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents 1 to 4 to release 1/3rd share of the family pension to the petitioner alone. The remaining amount shall be kept till the final adjudication made in the succession proceedings before the Civil Court. The exercise of release of family pension to the petitioner shall be made as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.03.2010 sanjeev