IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18307 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 30, 2009 Kirpal Kaur Kanwar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Chugh, Advocate, for Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order 3.7.2007 (Annexure P-13) whereunder prayer for grant of family pension to the petitioner on the death of her husband has been declined. Prayer is also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension with effect from 25.12.2004. In regard to the first claim i.e. for grant of family pension, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that an order has been CWP No.18307 of 2007 [2] passed on 30.12.2008 whereunder family pension has been directed to be released. Pension Pay Order (PPO) has been issued. The documents have been handed over in Court which are taken on record. The petition qua the first claim, under the circumstances, has been rendered infructuous. I, however, find that Shri Shamsher Singh Kanwar, husband of the petitioner was employed as regular combatant in Indian Air Force. Shri Kanwar was discharged/ retired on 16.12.1967 after putting in more than 24 years of service in Indian Air Force. He was granted regular military pension from the date of his discharge and he remained a pensioner till date of his death in December 2004. So far as claim of the petitioner to claim family pension from that date, is concerned, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was married to Shri Kanwar on 1.8.1954. The marriage has been registered as per Marriage Registration Certificate dated 24.9.1997 placed on record as Annexure P-1. It seems that Shri Kanwar was earlier married to one Raj Rani. There was however no issue from that marriage. The two fell apart and they settled their disputes amicably in the year 1953 When they separated. Raj Rani thereafter married one Shiv Ram Saini and gave birth to four children from her second marriage, and she is settled abroad in CWP No.18307 of 2007 [3] her new matrimonial home. The facts asserted are that the petitioner had been living with her husband Shri S.S. Kanwar after 1954 till the date of his death in December 2004. On the death of Shri Kanwar, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.2. i.e. Air Commanding Officer, Air Force Record Office, Subroto Park, New Delhi, on 8.2.2005 through Zila Sainik Welfare Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, for grant of family pension. The application has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. The application was duly forwarded by Zila Sainik Welfare Oficer, U.T. Chandigarh, on 14.2.2005 as is evident from Annexure P-4. When it was pointed out by the respondents that name of the petitioner was not entered in the service book, the petitioner brought all the facts to the notice of respondent No.2. Even the Marriage Certificate was submitted with respondent No.2 alongwith letter dated 7.4.2005 (Annexure P-6). Be that as it may, respondent No.2 asked District Sainik Welfare Officer, Amritsar, to make an enquiry into the facts and circumstances. Deputy Director, Sainik Welfare, Amritsar, verified various facts and the same were submitted alongwith report dated 26.10.2005 to the Office of Zila Sainik Welfare Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. The document has been placed on record as Annexure P-9. Annexure P-9 CWP No.18307 of 2007 [4] disclosed the factum of second marriage of Raj Rani with Shiv Ram Saini and also the fact that Raj Rani had no objection nor had made any claim in regard to the benefits arising out of earlier marriage with Shri S.S. Kanwar. Faced with the objections raised by respondents, the petitioner even applied for Succession Certificate which was granted vide judgment dated 26.3.2007. Copy of the judgment rendered by the Court having competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh has been placed on record as Annexure P-10 dated 26.3.2007. Succession Certificate itself has been placed on record as Annexure P-11 dated 15.5.2007. The petitioner duly sent copy of judgment and copy of Succession Certificate i.e. Anenxure P-10 and Annexure P-11 respectively to respondent No.2. The case of the petitioner still was not processed. Rather the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 3.7.2007, Annexure P-13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents delayed the payment of family pension to the petitioner without any judicious or reasonable cause beyond October 2005 when even on enquiry by Deputy Director Sainik Welfare, Amritsar, Punjab, it had been disclosed to respondent No.2 that indeed the petitioner was entitled to family pension. The reason assigned in CWP No.18307 of 2007 [5] the impugned order to the effect that there had been no formal divorce with Raj Rani, was not sufficient in so much as on an enquiry conducted on the issue, it stood established that Raj Rani had re-married and was living in her new matrimonial home and had no objection or relation to any claim in context of Shri Kanwar. The marriage of petitioner with Shri Kanwar was solemnised on 1.8.1954 i.e. before coming in force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Because repeated objections were raised, the petitioner had even approached a Court of law for Succession Certificate, although in the facts and circumstances, none was required. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that even the Succession Certificate had not been accepted as sufficient reason for release of family pension to the petitioner. In view of this, I am of the view that Order dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure P-13) has been passed for injudicious and arbitrary reasons and no rational approach to the issue had been adopted. On filing the petition and issue of notice of motion, no written statement has been filed, however, Pension Pay Order has been released vide Communication dated 30.12.2008, of which notice has been taken in earlier part of the order. I am of the view that unreasonable delay has been caused in release of family pension to the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RSJ 497 CWP No.18307 of 2007 [6] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Aggrawal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007(1) RSJ 249 have concluded that if delay is attributable to the Government, the claimant is always entitled for interest. Pension can no longer be treated as bounty to be distributed by Government to its employees. It constitutes valuable rights and property in the hands of employees and for delayed payment, the employee concerned is entitled to payment of interest. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on the arrears of family pension with effect from 1.12.2005 till the date of payment @ 9% per annum, to be released under Pension Pay Order dated 30.12.2008. The petition is disposed in the above terms. (AJAI LAMBA) January 30, 2009 JUDGE avin