Last Updated on January 5, 2026 by Satish Mishra
This post is a summary of judgment wherein Petition herein is seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release dues and other admissible service benefits like family pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GPF and GIC, etc. of late Sh. Nirlep Singh. The Court held, “Without commenting on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioners.”
Also Read- Release of Retiral Benefits IAS CAT Tribunal Chandigarh Case
Judgment digest
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 27.01.2021
Petitioners:
Rumanpreet and others
Respondents:
State of Punjab and others
Quorum:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Also Read- Paucity of funds not valid ground to withhold pensionary benefits
Facts and evidence presented by both parties.
The petition herein is seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release dues and other admissible service benefits like family pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GPF and GIC, etc. of late Sh. Nirlep Singh, who died on 18.05.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before the marriage of late Sh. Nirlep Singh (DSP) with petitioner No.1, was earlier married to one Gurdish Kaur. Out of earlier wedlock, one daughter namely, Navleen Kaur was born, who is presently 24 years of age and is settled in Canada for the last four years. Said earlier marriage was dissolved by mutual consent on 13.03.2006. After the divorce, petitioner No.1 solemnized marriage with late Nirlep Singh on 05.05.2006. During his lifetime deceased Nirlep Singh nominated his second wife Rumanpreet Kaur (petitioner No.1) as a nominee in his GPF Account and other service benefits. Learned counsel submits that SSP Ferozepur vide letter dated 17.07.2020 requested Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar to issue Succession /Dependent/LR Certificate so that admissible pension case can be remitted to the office of respondent No.5. However, Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar verbally stated that a dependency certificate cannot be issued because the deceased was married twice and also had one child from the first marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that without going into the admissibility of the claim of ex-wife and/or daughter born out of the previous wedlock of the deceased husband, the position in law is that the current widow and the minor children are entitled to payment of family pension under Rule 6.17(4) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II and GPF in accordance with Rule 13.7 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II.
Also Read- Charanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 August, 2017
He argues that at worse, the proportionate claim of the daughter born out of the earlier wedlock can be withheld subject outcome of her alleged claim. Said daughter is currently 24 years of age, permanently settled in Canada, and though not dependent, but is pursuing her claim at the behest of her mother (ex-wife) by executing ‘special power of attorney in her favor. Yet, without any plausible reason, the widow and the minor children born out of the second wedlock are being deprived of their dues. In this aspect, legal notice dated 25.07.2020 (Annexure P-11) was also caused and the same has also not been adverted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied, at this stage, if a final decision is taken on the legal notice dated 25.07.2020. Ms. Ambika Bedi, AAG, Punjab, who has joined proceedings on service of an advance copy of the petition, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab.
Also Read- Hc Relief For Retd Teacher Of Govt-aided Institution
Judgment:
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioners as per legal notice dated 25.07.2020 (Annexure P-11) and also by keeping in view the contentions stated in the present petition by treating the same as supplementary representation and decide the same by passing a speaking order, in accordance with the law.
Also Read- PU faculty not entitled to retiral benefits beyond 60 years: HC
For case specific advice, please contact Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh best top expert lawyers.
For more info, call 9988817966.
Responses from AI.
Key Principles from Recent Cases:
- Dignity & Livelihood: Retiral benefits are crucial for a dignified life post-retirement, not a charitable handout; denial violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Condemnation of Unjust Withholding: Courts penalize governments for withholding benefits based on stale allegations (e.g., 14 years old) or financial constraints, ordering release of funds.
- Interest on Delayed Payments: If the State holds money due to a retiree, it must pay interest (e.g., 6% p.a.) as compensation for using that money.
- Proper Service Record Evaluation: The High Court ensures all service periods (ad-hoc, regularized) are counted correctly, and belated audit objections without legal basis are struck down.
- Medical Reimbursement: Financial hardship is not a valid ground for denying medical reimbursement, as it’s part of service conditions. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Common Issues Addressed:
- Denial of pension/gratuity due to pending departmental inquiries or audit objections.
- Incorrect calculation of qualifying service.
- Delay in releasing payments.
- Denial of medical benefits. [2, 3, 4, 5]
Where to Find More Information:
- LiveLaw and SCC Online provide summaries of key judgments.
- Indian Kanoon offers access to case law.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court official website hosts judgments.
