GURJEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that husband of petitioner No.1, namely, Tarlochan Singh, was working with the respondent-department and he unfortunately died while in service on 06.10.2016. After the death of husband of petitioner No.1, petitioners were not given all the benefits including the family pension in respect of the service rendered by Sh. Tarlochan Singh. Claim of the petitioners is to direct respondents to grant them all the benefits for which they have become entitled for after the death of Sh. Tarlochan Singh in respect of the service rendered by him.

(2.) Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed a short reply, wherein, it has been stated that all the benefits for which petitioner No.1 became entitled for after the death of her husband have been released to her in January, 2019. The relevant paragraph of the reply is as under: -

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners argues that husband of petitioner No.1 died on 06.10.2016, whereas the benefits for which the petitioners became entitled immediately after the death of husband of petitioner No.1, have been paid in January, 2019 only and therefore, as there is inordinate delay of more than 2 years in the release of the pensionary benefits, the petitioners are also entitled for interest in the payments released in January, 2019 keeping in view the settled principles of law. Counsel for the respondents argues that once the benefits have been extended to the petitioners and petitioner No.1 had given in writing that she will not pursue the present remedy any further, she is not entitled for the interest.