AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 255 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 18.12.2025 whereby respondent has rejected her claim for family pension.
The petitioner’s husband belonged to Punjab Police. He was due to retire on 31.01.2014. He was granted one year extension. He was convicted by Trial Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2014 passed in FIR No.2 dated 03.04.2013 under Sections 302, 201, 363, 366-A, 120-B, 217 & 218 of IPC registered at Police Station Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar (Mohali). He was convicted under Sections 217 and 218 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of 2 ½ years. The respondent withheld his retiral benefits. He preferred CWP No.18512 of 2014 which was allowed vide judgment dated 29.07.2016. He passed away on 16.07.2023. The respondent stopped family pension. The petitioner made representation which came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 18.12.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to family pension as per judgment of this Court in Surjit Kaur V/s State of Punjab, LAWFINDER DOC ID # 83652 and Shakuntla Devi V/s State of Punjab & Another, LAWFINDER DOC ID # 2624047.
Faced with this, learned State counsel submits that claim of petitioner would be reconsidered and appropriate order would be passed within two months from today.
In the wake of above discussion and findings, the petition stands disposed of.
The Court is sanguine that respondent would consider aforesaid judgment while passing the order.