Rajesh v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 15 Feb 2023 · 2023:DHC:1120-DB

Suresh Kumar Kait; Neena Bansal Krishna

2023:DHC:1120-DB

administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking family pension as not maintainable since the petitioner had already foregone her claims in an earlier order and pension benefits were granted to the children.

Full Text

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001120

W.P.(C) 1939/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: February 15, 2023

W.P.(C) 1939/2023 & CM. APPL.7367/2023
SMT RAJESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.K. Tripathi, Advocate with Major Partho Katyayan

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

JUDGMENT

(oral)

1. Vide the present writ petition, petitioner is seeking directions to respondents to grant the payment of family pension in her favour.

2. Learned counsel for respondents, who is appearing on advance notice, has drawn the attention of this Court to para 5 of order dated 02.07.2007 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said para is reproduced as under:

“5. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the submissions made at the bar, we see no reason why the respondents should not examine and expeditiously process the claim for payment of family pension in favour of petitioner no. 1 who is the lawfully married wife of the deceased Subedar Bani Singh. Insofar as the claim made by petitioner no. 2 is concerned, Mr. Kauntao counsel appearing for the said petitioner fairly conceded that since

17:36 Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001120 W.P.(C) 1939/2023 a question mark has been put on the legitimacy of the second marriage, the claim made by her for payment of pension may be taken as not pressed. He, however, sought liberty for petitioner no. 2 to make a claim on behalf of her minor children for grant of pensionary benefits which claim, the respondents shall examine and suitably dispose of in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. The needful shall be done expeditiously but not later than four months from the date a representation is made to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts through Officer-in-charge Records, Jat Regiment. Representation to be made within four weeks from today.”

3. Since the petitioner has already foregone all her claims in the said petition, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for respondents has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that pursuant to order dated 02.07.2007, the children of the petitioner got pension along with the first wife of deceased Subedar Bani Singh.

5. Accordingly, since petitioner was not entitled for family pension, as was admitted in order dated 02.07.2007, and she had foregone her claims, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application is dismissed.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE FEBRUARY 15, 2023 17:36

Rajesh v. Union of India

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation