CWP-14879-2023 (O&M) -1- 126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14879-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.08.2026 SANTOSH DEVI ..Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Gursimranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Sr. Panel Counsel for respondents No.1 to 6-UOI. Mr. Chandeep Singh, Advocate and Ms. Husandeep Singh, Advocate and Ms. Palak Gosain, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for respondent No.8. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for respondent No.9. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus to direct official respondents to release the pensionary beenfits and insurance claim of the deceased son in the favour of the petitioner being the mother and legal heir of the deceased. And for grant of ad-interim stay to the release of the service benefits and other amount including the insurance claim of the deceased. And for direction to respondent Nos.7 and 8 not to SAHIL 2026.08.20 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-14879-2023 (O&M) -2- release any amount from any of the accounts saving/salary/insurance claim in favour of respondent Nos.9. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at this stage he is only pressing for the release of insurance amount in which respondent No.9 is declared as nominee, since the nominee is just a trustee and the amount is equally to be distributed as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 3. In support of his arguments, he relies on the following judgment:- i. Smt. Tej Kaur Vs. Smt. Sarbjit Kaur, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 333, decided on 01.03.2007 ii. Rajwinder Kaur and another Vs. Kashmir Kaur and others, law finder doc id #1402503, decided on 31.10.2017 iii. Sukhwinder Kaur Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat Rupnagar and Others, 2025 NCPHHC 93455, decided on 10.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 contends that as per Rule 50 Sub-Clause (6), the pensionary benefits have been rightly granted to the widow since the first right as per Rule 50 Sub-Clause (6), is of the widow. Therefore, the petitioner (mother of deceased) would not be entitled for the pensionary benefits. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.8-Insurance Company contends that whole amount of Rs.50,00,000/- of insurance policy has already been disbursed to respondent No.9. He has placed on record payment voucher dated 17.01.2024 to show the disbursal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 7. As per the contentions of learned counsel for respondent No.8- Insurance Company, the amount has already been disbursed to respondent SAHIL 2026.08.20 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-14879-2023 (O&M) -3- No.9 and at this stage for recovery of the same from respondent No.9 the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be before the Civil Court. 8. In view of the same, the present writ petition is dismissed. 9. Liberty is however, granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy as is available to her in accordance with law to recover the amount already given to respondent No.9 by the Insurance Company. 10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. August 18th, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Sahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SAHIL 2026.08.20 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.