IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19789 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.08.2011 Avtar Kaur ...Petitioner Versus 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. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** SURYA KANT .J.(Oral) The husband of the petitioner who was an employee of the Punjab Home Guards at Ludhiana was unfortunately killed by the terrorists on 04/05.08.1991. The factum of the death of the petitioner's husband is duly recorded vide FIR No. 104 dated 05.08.1991 under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar at Khanna. The petitioner has now been granted 'family pension' w.e.f. November, 2007. The solitary question which still survives for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of 'family pension' from the date when she lost her husband at the hands of terrorists and/or the respondents have rightly granted the same from November, 2007. CWP No. 19789 of 2010 [2] The respondents have with a view to justify their decision, come up with a preliminary objection that petitioner herself gave in 'writing' that she will not claim arrears of 'family pension'. The other plea taken by them is self contradictory inasmuch as on one hand the respondents say that the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner as a 'volunteer' of Punjab Home Guards was not 'regular' and as such the 'family pension' inadmissible but on the other, they have granted the same from November, 2007. In my considered view both the pleas taken by the respondents cannot sustain either in law or in equity. I say so for the reason that the 'family pension' is referable to right to live duly guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner as a house wife was totally dependent on her husband and the latter's sudden death left her with no means to lead a dignified life. Unless the petitioner is provided some source of bare survival, her 'right to live' within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution stands jeopardize. A fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution deemed to be waived or surrendered even with the petitioner's consent. In so far as the second plea is concerned the same, as already noticed above, is self contradictory. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant arrears of family pension to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband till the same CWP No. 19789 of 2010 [3] has been actually paid to her. In case the arrears are paid within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, no interest shall be leviable. However, in the event of further delay, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) 24.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'