CWP-1423- IN TH 219 1) Uma Devi Managing Di 2) Parsani Devi State of Hary CORAM: Present : 1 -2019 & 15396-2000 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA VERSUS ing Director, UHBVNL and others i Devi VERSUS f Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate with Mr. Prajjwal Jaiswal, Advo for the petitioner in CWP-1423 Mr. Sunil Kumar Bharadwaj, Ad with Ms. Radha Bhardwaj, Advo and Mr. Vaidaant Arora, Advoca for the petitioner in CWP-15396 Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, Addl. AG Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate with Mr. Shubham Malik, Advo NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 CWP-1423-2019 .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden CWP-15396-2020 .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate 1423-2019. aj, Advocate j, Advocate dvocate 15396-2000. l. AG Haryana. Advocate .2026 itioner ondents 0 itioner ondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- HARPREET 1. abovemention pose a comm are taken from 2. of the Consti of mandamu in favour of with interest. FACTUAL B 3. Assistant Lin born out of th Unfortunately customs, the deceased on 10 of the Gua 2 -2019 & 15396-2000 for the respondents in CWP-142 Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in CW Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior Adv with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv for respondents No.4 and 5 in CW *** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This common judgment sh entioned petitions as they arise from common question of law. However, f en from CWP-1423-2019. The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of a amus directing the respondent autho ur of the petitioner and grant arrears terest. UAL BACKGROUND The petitioner was married to A nt Lineman with the respondent-Corp ut of this wedlock namely, Laxman Si unately, Alam Singh died on 16.07 s, the petitioner was remarried to A ed on 06.11.1990. The petitioner also he Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 wh 1423-2019. 3 in CWP-15396-2000. r Advocate a, Advocate 5 in CWP-15396-2020. nt shall dispose of both the se from a similar factual matrix and ever, for the sake of brevity, the facts has been filed under Articles 226/227 ce of an appropriate writ in the nature t authorities to restore family pension rrears of family pension to her along d to Alam Singh, who worked as an Corporation. Two children were also an Singh, son and Neema, daughter. 16.07.1988. As per the prevailing to Anand Singh, the brother of the r also moved a petition under Section 90 which was allowed by the learned the and facts 6/227 nature nsion along as an e also ghter. ailing of the ection arned PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- Guardian Co holding that is therefore, e 4. petitioner up (Annexure P respondent- daughter as h pension w.e. petitioner w (Annexure P application d had gotten m 5. grant her the a legal notice that the rema from grant o accepted, the CONTENTI 6. has been de remarriage to 3 -2019 & 15396-2000 an Court, Rohtak vide order dated g that the petitioner is the natural guar fore, entitled to draw pensionary bene The family pension was first allo ner up to 06.09.2007, as indicated ure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner -Corporation seeking transfer of f er as her son had attained the age of 2 n w.e.f. 07.09.2007. In response to ner was granted family pension ure P-3). Subsequently, the daughter tion dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure P- tten married on 24.02.2012. Consequently, the petitioner urg er the said family pension, however, to notice (Annexure P-5) on the respond e remarriage to the brother of the dec rant of family pension. Since the cl ed, the present writ petition was filed. ENTIONS Learned counsel for the petitio en denied family pension only for iage to the brother of the deceased em dated 16.07.1994 (Annexure P-1) al guardian of the minor children and y benefits on their behalf. irst allowed in favour of the son of the dicated by letter dated 11.08.2003 itioner sent a representation to the er of family pension in favour of her e of 25 years resulting in stoppage of se to the same, the daughter of the sion vide letter dated 01.10.2007 ughter of the petitioner submitted an -4) to stop family pension as she er urged the concerned authorities to ever, to no avail. The petitioner served espondent-Corporation stating therein the deceased would not disentitle her the claim of the petitioner was not filed. petitioner contends that the petitioner ly for the reason of her customary sed employee. The petitioner has not 1) n and of the .2003 to the of her age of of the .2007 an as she ties to ed herein le her as not tioner omary not PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- remarried int deceased. He Benches of t 312 and Kira that widows r family pensio the family o Mastan Bee SCT 367 has the destitute disburse fami 7. that Rule 4(i Punjab Civil and Rule 8(1 applicable w pension only was released issued vide petitioner had marriage und judgment of a Kaur 2014 (1 4 -2019 & 15396-2000 ied into a new family but remains a ed. He relies upon the judgments re es of this Court in Kamaljit Kaur vs. Kiran Kumar vs. State of Haryana dows remarried to the family of their d pension as their dependency remains ily of the deceased. Further, the H Bee vs. The General Manager, So has held that the employer cannot titute dependents to reject their claim e family pension at the earliest. Per contra, learned counsel for le 4(iii)(a) of the Family Pension Sch Civil Services Rules Volume II, as ap le 8(10)(B) of the Haryana Civil Serv ble w.e.f. 19.07.2016 provides that n only up to the date of her remarriag leased in favour of the petitioner hers vide memo dated 01.12.1988 (A ner had remarried on 06.11.1990 and s ge under Section 7 of the Hindu Marr nt of a Coordinate Bench of this Cour 14 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 1004, her entitl ains a member of the family of the nts rendered by respective Division r vs. Union of India 1998(1) SCT yana 2004 (1) SCT 650 to contend their deceased husband are entitled to mains in alignment with the need of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. r, South Central Railway 2003(1) cannot take advantage of illiteracy of claim and, is obliged to compute and sel for respondent No.2 and 3 submits ion Scheme, 1964- Appendix I of the , as applicable to the State of Haryana il Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, as that a widow is entitled to family arriage. Initially, the family pension er herself vide PPO dated 21.11.1988 8 (Annexure R-2). However, the and since karewa marriage is a valid Marriage Act, 1955, in terms of the s Court in Darbara Singh vs. Jaswant entitlement to family pension ceased of the vision SCT ntend tled to eed of S.K. 3(1) acy of te and bmits of the ryana 16, as family nsion .1988 r, the valid of the ant eased PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- to exist from for grant of f the first marr Court to be d receive famil Kamaljit Kau present case neither involv Pension Sche OBSERVAT 8. the record o petitioner had brother of he granted fami was credited the petitione married, the f 9. Oft families, espe of the retire security but a and others v 5 -2019 & 15396-2000 t from the day she got remarried. In fa nt of family pension being the guard t marriage. Notably, the petitioner als to be declared guardian of her minor ch family pension on their behalf. Fur t Kaur (supra) and Kiran Kumar(s t case as they deal with entirely differe involve the Pension Regulations for n Scheme, 1964. RVATION AND ANALYSIS Having heard learned counsel f cord of the case with their able as ner had solemnised a karewa marriage r of her deceased husband- Alam Sin family pension in her own name ho edited to her in the name of her mino titioner has crossed the age of 25 y d, the family pension has been stopped Oftentimes, retiral benefits are the o s, especially when the primary breadw retired/deceased employees not onl y but also for their very survival. It wa ers vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SC d. In fact, the petitioner had requested guardian of her minor children from ner also moved the learned Guardian or children in order to be eligible to lf. Further, the judgment rendered in ar(supra) are not applicable to the different facts and circumstances that s for the Army, 1961 nor the Family unsel for the parties and after perusing ble assistance, it transpires that the rriage with Anand Singh, the younger m Singh. The petitioner was initially me however, subsequently, the same r minor children. Now that the son of f 25 years and the daughter stands topped as a whole. re the only source of income for many readwinner has passed away. The kin ot only rely on the same for fiscal . It was also observed in D.K. Nakara 1 SCC 305 that pension and retiral uested from ardian ible to red in to the s that amily rusing at the unger itially same son of stands many kin fiscal kara retiral PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- benefits are the pensioner and secure li greater force member of destitution. 10. Constitution includes the Court in Fra Delhi (1981) constitutes a further clarif and shelter o oneself in div with fellow h “bare minim economic de under Article a social secu highlighted b  Disqua 6 -2019 & 15396-2000 s are not bounty by nature but in fact, sioner and his family for assistance cure life as illustrated in D.K. Nakara force to family pension, as the same i r of the family passes away, leavi Furthermore, the right to life tution of India, is not limited to s the right to live a dignified meaning Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Adm 981) 1 SCC 608 has opined that an utes a violation of Article 21 of the clarified that bare necessities such a ter over the head and facilities for r n diverse forms, freely moving abou ow human beings” as well as any inimum expression of human sel development of the State, form a Article 21 of the Constitution of India. l security measure flowing from the hted by Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a), and 4 isqualification for the reason of Kar in fact, are akin to wages, relied upon tance. The entitlement to a dignified akara (supra) must be applied with same is only granted when an earning leaving his dependents at risk for o life enshrined in Article 21 of the d to mere animal -like existence but eaningful life. The Hon’ble Supreme Administrator, Union Territory of that any act offending human dignity of the Constitution of India. It was such as “adequate nutrition, clothing for reading, writing and expressing about and mixing and commingling as any other activities constituting a self,” subject to the degree of orm a part and parcel of right to life India. As such, family pension too is m the vision for a Welfare State as ), and 41 of the Constitution of India. f Karewa marriage upon nified with arning sk for of the but preme y of ignity t was ng sing ling ting a ee of to life too is ate as ndia. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- 11. understood th of her deceas which also st Act, 1955, ai of widows a remarriage, t blood relativ affection. M matrimonial the matrimon their well-be rehabilitation 12. claiming fam punitive but family now b and thus, she husband. Wit parents of th vulnerability. 13. I a communal 7 -2019 & 15396-2000 Before delving further into the tood that karewa marriages i.e. remarr deceased husband, serve a social pur also stands recognised in terms of Se 55, aid in providing patronage to min ows and ensuring continuity of care iage, the paternity of the children is a relatives, who are more likely to rais on. Moreover, the ties between the onial family are not severed by the d trimonial family is called upon to shou being, this custom also assists itation of widows and their children. The Service Rules often pro g family pension but the legislative e but redistributive. The assumption now bears the responsibility for her f us, she is no longer dependent on th d. With that in mind, the benefits are of the deceased employee as financ ability. In that context, it appears that the unal life with the family of her decea to the controversy at hand, it must be remarriage of a widow to the brother ial purpose. This customary practice, of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage to minor children, preserving dignity f care for aged parents. Upon such en is also established from within the to raise them with genuine care and n the widow, her children and the the death of her first husband. Since to shoulder the moral responsibility of assists in the social and financial en proscribe a remarried widow from slative intent behind the same is not ption at work therein is that her new r her financial and social well-being, t on the estate of her deceased first fits are redirected to the children and financial support must follow actual that the petitioner has continued living deceased first husband even after the ust be rother actice, rriage ignity such in the e and d the Since lity of ancial from is not r new being, d first n and actual living ter the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- solemnisation deceased. H member of th that her con Rather, upon financial resp structure and strict and me reality to ma beneficial nat 14. interpreted a rather, appare not to be pun not resulted i deceased firs to the social mandate, par is in harmo marriages has 8.35 of the P 28.05.1975, t “3. In renum 8 -2019 & 15396-2000 isation of her marriage with Anan ed. However, considering that the r of the family of her deceased first r connection with the family of th , upon such remarriage, there has al responsibilities as the children rema re and the aged parents reside in the nd mechanical disqualification would to make good an administrative tech ial nature of the provisions for family Thus, the customary practice eted as remarriage in the manner en apparently, it has a harmonising effec be punished merely for remarrying wh ulted in her unjust enrichment at the ed first husband. The State, being a m social realities and endeavour to bal te, particularly when it is clear that a c harmony with the settled law. In f ges has also been recognised by the Sta f the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol 975, that reads as follows: . In the said rules in rule 8.35 in s numbered as sub-clause (a), of that Anand Singh, the brother of the t the petitioner remained an active first husband, it cannot be assumed of the deceased has been severed. has been no fragmentation of the n remain under the same guardianship the same household. Therefore, a would amount to overlooking social e technicality, thereby defeating the amily pension. ractice of karewa marriage cannot be ner envisaged by the Service Rules, g effect thereon. The petitioner ought ing when her subsequent marriage has at the cost of other dependents of her ng a model employer, must stay alive to balance equity with the statutory hat a custom such as karewa marriage . In fact, the relevance of karewa the State of Punjab by amending Rule s Volume II vide notification dated in sub-rule (2), clause (i) shall be that clause and after sub-clause (a) f the active umed vered. f the anship ore, a social g the not be Rules, ought ge has of her alive tutory rriage ewa Rule dated ll be (a) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- as so namely 15. the very pro harmonious c 17.04.2009 i consideration cases. The re “Resid 21. In covere noticed Govern circum under Furthe prescr prescr prescr the par Power 22. Wh of the particu require conditi just an 9 -2019 & 15396-2000 so renumbered, the following mely:- “Notwithstanding anything co widow who remarries her dec continues to live a communal li of other dependents of her de disqualified for the grant of ext admissible to her under these ru Furthermore, considering the be ry provision of family pension, ef nious construction than otherwise. M 009 issued by the Government of erations to be made in order to preve The relevant provisions are reproduced esiduary provisions In the event of any general or spe vered under these rules or about wh ticed, the matter shall be referre overnment will prescribe the condit rcumstances. Such conditions as p der this paragraph shall be deem rther, if the Government is satisfied escribe certain additional condi escribe such conditions and suc escribed by the Government under t e part of these rules. wer to relax . Where the Government is satisfied the provisions of these rules ca rticular case, it may, by order, quirements of these rules to such nditions as it may consider necessar st and equitable manner.” ng sub-clause shall be inserted, contained in sub clause (A) a deceased husband’s brother and al life or contributed to the support r deceased’s husband shall not be f extra ordinary pension, otherwise se rules.” the benevolent nature and purpose of on, efforts must be made towards ise. Moreover, the notification dated ent of Haryana allows for special prevent undue hardship in particular uced below: special circumstances which is not ut which certain inconsistencies are erred to the Government and the nditions to be followed under such as prescribed by the Government deemed to be part of these rules. isfied that there is a requirement to onditions, the Government shall such additional condi tions as der this para, shall be deemed to be fied that the operation of all or any s causes undue hardship in any der, dispense with or relax the such extent and subject to such essary for dealing with the case in a rted, ) a and port t be wise ose of wards dated pecial ticular not are the such ent ules. t to hall as o be any any the such in a PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- Moreo in Deepika S also insisted policies. S observed as f “15. T constru 126 thi approa 10 -2019 & 15396-2000 Moreover, a Two Judge bench of ka Singh vs. Central Administrative sisted upon adopting a liberal approac s. Speaking through Dr. Justice. as follows: 5. The provisions of Rule 43(1) mu nstruction. In KH Nazar v. Math this Court noted that beneficial leg proach: "11. Provisions of a beneficial l with a purpose-oriented appro liberal construction to prom construction of the provisions o be avoided. It is the court's duty legislature in making the law ascertained, the statute shou functional interpretation. 12. In the words of O. Chinnap statutory construction of benefi (Workmen case, SCC p. 76, para "4. The principles of st settled. Words occurring such as "social welfare legislation are not to b shrunk to Lilliputian di legislation's the imposture avoided and the prodigali recognised and reduced concerned with the "co "context" of such statute from Lord Wilberfor Simmonds [Prenn v. Sim (1971) 3 All ER 237 (HL Wilberforce pointed out t in some island of literal i beyond the language, u facts in which they ar ch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ative Tribunal, 2022 INSC 834, has pproach while interpreting beneficial tice. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud ) must be imbued with a purposive athew K Jacob, (2020) 14 SCC al legislation must be given a liberal cial legislation have to be construed pproach. The Act should receive a romote its objects. Also, literal ns of a beneficial legislation has to duty to discern the intention of the law. Once such an intention is should receive a purposeful or nnappa Reddy, J., the principles of eneficial legislation are as follows para 4) of statutory construction are well rring in statutes of liberal import are legislation and human rights" to be put in Procrustean beds or n dimensions. In construing these sture of literal construction must be igality of its misapplication must be uced. Judges ought to be more "colour", the "content" and the atutes (we have borrowed the words rforce's opinion in Prenn v. . Simmonds, (1971) 1 WLR 1381 : (HL)] ). In the same opinion Lord out that law is not to be left behind eral interpretation but is to enquire e, un-isolated from the matrix of y are set; the law is not to be Court , has eficial chud, sive SCC eral rued ve a teral as to f the n is l or s of ws: well port hts" s or hese t be st be ore the ords v. 81 : ord hind uire x of be PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- 13. W statute constru should 16. It vested in a w deceased em allowed to b other. On tha would also je first husband  Recove 17. F that pertains disbursement receiving fam effect from J 11 -2019 & 15396-2000 interpreted purely on inte In one of the cases cite Kumar Verma v. Centr cum-Labour Court , we h Kumar Verma case, SCC "6. .. Semantic lu interpretation of Welfare statutes mu interpretation. Wher relief against certai not to make inro excursions.? " . While interpreting a statute, the tute was designed to remedy shoul nstruction that suppresses the prob ould be adopted.” It must also be emphasised that th in a widow alone but typically flows t ed employee. As such, the depend d to be treated as a unit as their live On that note, disqualifying the petition also jeopardise the rights of any surviv sband. ecovery of excessive disbursement Further, in CWP-1423-2019, an ertains to initiation of recovery ement of family pension. The peti ng family pension on behalf of her m from June 1988. As per impugned ord internal linguistic considerations. cited before us, that is, Surendra entral Govt. Industrial Tribunal we had occasion to say : (Surendra CC p. 447, para 6) c luxuries are misplaced in the of "bread and butter" statutes. s must, of necessity, receive a broad here legislation is designed to giv ertain kinds of mischief, the court is inroads by making etymological the problem or mischief that the hould first be identified and then a problem and advances the remedy (emphasis added) that the right to family pension is not lows to all immediate dependents of a ependents, when possible, must be ir lives are not untethered from each etitioner from availing family pension surviving dependents of her deceased nt 9, an additional issue has been raised overy proceedings from excessive e petitioner-Prasani Devi had been her minor daughter-Kiran Devi with ed order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure ons. ndra nal- dra the utes. road give rt is ical the en a edy dded) is not ts of a st be each nsion eased raised essive been i with exure PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- P-1 in CWP supposed to continued to disbursement entitlement. 18. any misrepre Court is of th rustic woman being disburs mala fide ca realised the f such, the resp from the petit 19. part of the pe subject to rec (2) SCT 722 through Justi “9. Th the e misrep payme for ca interpr errone 12 -2019 & 15396-2000 CWP-1423-2019) the family pensio ed to stop w.e.f. 24.11.1996. Ho ed to disburse the same up till ement of an additional amount of ent. Admittedly, the additional sum w srepresentation or fraud on part of the is of the considered opinion that since woman, who was under the impress disbursed to her personally, and not can be attributed to her. Moreov d the factum of excessive disburseme he respondents have no locus to dema e petitioner or her daughter at such a b It is settled law that if there is n the pensioner, any excess payment m t to recovery. In Thomas Daniel v. St 722, a two-Judge Bench of the Ho h Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, observed as This Court in a catena of decisio e excess amount was not isrepresentation or fraud of the yment was made by the employer r calculating the pay/allowance or terpretation of rule/order which roneous, such excess payment of e pension granted to Kiran Devi was 6. However, the respondent-Bank p till August, 2019 resulting in nt of Rs.12,66,082/-, beyond their l sum was not disbursed on account of of the petitioner or her daughter. This since the petitioner-Prasani Devi is a pression that the family pension is d not on behalf of her daughter, no oreover, the concerned respondents ursement over two decades later. As demand reimbursement for the same uch a belated stage. re is no misrepresentation or fraud on ent made to him/her cannot be made v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking as follows: cisions has consistently held that if ot paid on account of any the employee or if such excess yer by applying a wrong principle ce or on the basis of a particular ich is subsequently found to be of emoluments or allowances are i was Bank ng in their unt of . This vi is a ion is er, no dents er. As same ud on made 022 aking at if any cess ciple ular be are PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- not re becaus discret will be that if that th paid, o time o discret particu excess 20. State of Pun excess amou impermissibl extended to pension. The decades und respondents accumulated respondents. however, in entitled to fa from the arre 13 -2019 & 15396-2000 t recoverable. This relief against cause of any right of the employees b scretion to provide relief to the em ll be caused if the recovery is order at if in a given case, it is proved th at the payment received was in exce id, or in cases where error is detec e of wrong payment, the matter scretion, the courts may on the fa rticular case order for reco cess.” Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih 2015(1) amount from a pensioner, for a issible in law. As such, the settled ed to cases pertaining to excess p n. The petitioner- Parsani Devi was re s under a bona fide belief with re dents cannot paint a picture depi ulated a large sum by virtue of the dents. While the claim for recovery f er, in the present case, once the pet to family pension, the excess payme e arrears of the family pension. inst the recovery is granted not ees but in equity, exercising judicial employees from the hardship that rdered. This Court has further held d that an employee had knowledge excess of what was due or wrongly etected or corrected within a short tter being in the realm of judicial e facts and circumstances of any recovery of amount paid in (emphasis added preme Court has categorically held in (1) SCT 195 that recovery of any for a period beyond 05 years, is settled principle of law can also be cess payment made towards family was receiving the family pension for ith respect to her entitlement. The depicting that the petitioner has the excessive payment made by the very fails both in law and in equity, he petitioner- Parsani Devi is found payment made to her can be adjusted not icial that held edge ngly hort icial any in dded) eld in f any rs, is lso be family on for t. The r has by the quity, found justed PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1423- CONCLUSI 21. petitions are a (i) T (ii) T 22. P disposed of. 23. 29.01.2026 PC 14 -2019 & 15396-2000 LUSION In view of the discussion above ns are allowed in the following manner (i) The concerned authority/respond the family pension of the res marriage cannot be equated t purpose of grant of family pensi not disqualified by the applicabl (ii) The impugned order dated 26.09 15396-2020 is hereby set aside payment made to the petitioner against the family pension gr consideration. Pending miscellaneous applicati ed of. Photocopy of this order be place o Whether speaking/reasone Whether reportable. : above, both the abovementioned writ anner: espondent(s) are directed to reinstate he respective petitioners as karewa ated to remarriage for the limited pension. As such, the petitioners are licable Rules. 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) in CWP aside. It is clarified that any excess itioner- Prasani Devi can be adjusted on granted to her upon favourable plication(s), if any, shall also stand place on the file of connected case. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No d writ instate ewa imited rs are WP- xcess justed urable stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document