CWP No. 5131 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5131 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 08, 2009 Shashi Kant Goswami ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Brig. B.S.Taunque, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed for claiming the death-in-service benefits of the wife of the petitioner on the ground that he is the only class- I heir. In reply the defences taken are (i) the petition has been filed after inordinate delay since the death of the wife of the petitioner took place on 29.2.1992 and this petition has been filed after 16 years (ii) after the death of the wife of the petitioner the respondents had received intimation from the father of the deceased that the petitioner had murdered his wife and, therefore, he is debarred from claiming any of her death benefits and (iii) the petitioner got remarried on 10.1.93 and was thus not entitled for the benefits. CWP No. 5131 of 2008 2 It is not disputed that the petitioner had applied for the benefits in March,1992 , however, thereafter the father of the deceased filed civil suit for a declaration that the petitioner was debarred from inheriting the property of his deceased wife. This civil suit was dismissed on 26.10.1998. Immediately thereafter the petitioner communicated the order to the respondents while requesting them for payment of the dues. Further it is also not disputed that no criminal case was registered with respect to the death of the wife of the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner cannot be held to be debarred from claiming these dues. As regards the question of delay it would be seen that the petitioner has been constantly representing to the respondents and the matter has been in correspondence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petition is barred by delay. The fact that the petitioner subsequently remarried is also no ground to disentitle him from claiming his wife's death benefits. , In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all the pending death-in-service benefits relating to the wife of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the claim of the petitioner for interest from 1992 cannot be accepted because up to 1998 the matter was subjudice and thus no fault could be attributed to the respondents. Thus the petitioner would be entitled to interest after the date of decision of the civil court say from 1.1.99 till the date of payment at the rate of 8% p.a. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 08, 2009 sunita