Attar Singh v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 26 Sep 2025 · 2025:DHC:8714-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
W.P.(C) 15162/2025
2025:DHC:8714-DB
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed substitution of the petitioner’s daughter as the family pension beneficiary following the death of the original beneficiary, the petitioner’s wife.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 15162/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 15162/2025
ATTAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC
WITH
Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Rajkumar Maurya and Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER (ORAL)
26.09.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force[1] in the 1960s and voluntarily retired from the CRPF on 21 January

1985.

2. The petitioner’s wife Lajja Vati was alive at the time of his retirement and was, therefore, entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits.

3. Lajja Vati expired on 7 August 2023. As a result, the sole daughter of the petitioner Kaushalya Devi became entitled to family pension. “CRPF” hereinafter W.P.(C) 15162/2025

4. The petitioner’s only grievance is that the petitioner has been repeatedly requesting the respondent to substitute the name of his daughter Kaushalya Devi as being entitled to family pension but has not received any favourable response.

5. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Issue notice, returnable forthwith.

7. We express our appreciation for the fact that Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC, on instructions, submits that the respondents are not contesting this case and would take steps to substitute the name of Kaushalya Devi in place of Lajja Vati as she is the person who would be entitled to disbursal of family pension and other retiral benefits consequent to the retirement of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today.

8. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025