In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Letters Patent Appeal No. 738 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 12.4.2013

Pooja Devi alias Jyoti and Others

... Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

... Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh,Acting Chief Justice . Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh.

Present: Mr. Karambir Singh Chawla, Advocate for the appellants.

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

By filing this appeal, the appellants have laid challenged to an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.1.2013 dismissing their writ petition viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 1961 of 2013. In that writ petition, it was prayed by the petitioners that directions be issued to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to release pension and other service benefits of deceased Constable Rajinder Singh in their favour.

Appellant No.1 is claiming herself to be a second wife of deceased Constable Rajinder Singh. She has further stated that appellants No. 4 and 5 are the children of above said officer from his first wife. It was admitted, at the time of arguments, that appellants No.4 and 5 are presently residing with respondents No.5 and 6 who are father and mother, respectively, of deceased Constable Rajinder Singh. It is also admitted that two suits, filed by appellant No.1 against respondents No.5 and 6 and one suit filed by respondent No.6 against the appellant No.1 are pending consideration. The above facts were noticed by the learned

Letters Patent Appeal No. 738 of 2013 (O&M) 2

Single Judge to say that many disputed questions of facts are involved and in the circumstances it will not be desirable to interfere in the writ petition. It was also noticed by the learned Single Judge that before the authorities also, separate claims have been filed by the contesting parties.

It is very surprising that when appellants No.4 and 5 are residing with respondents No.5 and 6, how appellant No.1 could file a civil writ petition at their instance. At no point of time, she has made any application before the competent authority to claim their custody. Respondents No. 5 and 6 are grand parents of appellants No.4 and 5 and there is nothing on record to show that they are being ill treated.

We have gone through the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has discussed everything in detail to say that disputed questions of facts cannot be looked into this writ petition.

Dismissed.

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

April 12, 2013 "DK"