1 2025:CGHC:16242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1820 of 2013  Smt. Saraswati Chouhan D/o Lt Shri Umendra Singh Chouhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tamasivani, Sub Tah Navapara, Ps Abhanpur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Home, New Delhi, Delhi 2. State Of C.G. Through Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Abhanpur, Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For U.O.I./Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, C.G.C. For State/Respondents No. 2 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer to 4 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07. 04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to forthwith released the pension and other benefits which a legal heirs of a freedom fighter is entitled to get. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/writs which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.08 14:37:01 +0530 2 married daughter of a freedom fighter. She would further submit that the father of the petitioner died on 20.03.2012. She would also submit that according to a circular issued by the Union of India, the petitioner is entitled to get the family pension. She would contend that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 3 and a direction may be issued to the concerned authority to decide the representation in an objective manner within a stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that according to the circular dated 01.05.1992, only unmarried dependent daughters are entitled to get family pensions. They would further submit that the petitioner is a married daughter and she was not dependent on her father, therefore, she is not entitled to get the family pension. They would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Ms. Kocher, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before the Collector, Raipur within a period of 30 days, and in turn, the concerned Collector is directed to decide it, preferably within a further period of 120 days in an objective manner. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant