Attar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

C.Hari Shankar, J.

The petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force^{11.“CRPF” hereinafter} in the 1960s and voluntarily retired from the CRPF on 21 January 1985.

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.

Lajja Vati expired on 7 August 2023. As a result, the sole daughter of the petitioner Kaushalya Devi became entitled to family pension.

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.

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

Issue notice, returnable forthwith.

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.

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