IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 110 Bira Rani and State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer made in the present petition for setting order dated 06.0 2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.2 is the married daughter of Sh. Parkash Chand, sinc unfortunately passed away on 29.10.2019 on having met with an accident while he was in service. Reference is made to the judgment in the case of Kaur vs. State of Punjab the Hon’ble Supreme Court based on which an amendment in the Instructions dated 21.11.2002 was carried out daughter including an adopted to be a dependent family member. He the above and CWP-10420-2021, decided on 24.01.2025 was no requirement to show dependency on the deceased employe that other ground deceased employee, had received pensionary benefits and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15737 Date of decision: nd another Versus Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) Prayer made in the present petition for setting order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P16). Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.2 is the married daughter of Sh. Parkash Chand, since deceased, who was working unfortunately passed away on 29.10.2019 on having met with an accident while service. Reference is made to the judgment in the case of Kaur vs. State of Punjab, CWP-2218-2017, decided on 17.01.2020 Hon’ble Supreme Court based on which an amendment in the Instructions dated 21.11.2002 was carried out on 29.01. daughter including an adopted to be a dependent family member. He the above and by referring to Balbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 2021, decided on 24.01.2025 (Annexure P17) was no requirement to show dependency on the deceased employe that other ground taken to reject their claim, that petitioner No.1, widow of the deceased employee, had received pensionary benefits and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 15737-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.08.2025 ..Petitioners ..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab. Prayer made in the present petition for setting aside the impugned Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.2 is the married daughter e deceased, who was working as Chowkidar and had unfortunately passed away on 29.10.2019 on having met with an accident while service. Reference is made to the judgment in the case of Amarjit 2017, decided on 17.01.2020 upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court based on which an amendment in the Instructions 29.01.2024 (Annexure P9) specifying daughter including an adopted to be a dependent family member. He, in wake of Balbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, (Annexure P17), submits that there was no requirement to show dependency on the deceased employee and further claim, that petitioner No.1, widow of the deceased employee, had received pensionary benefits and her son is serving the impugned Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.2 is the married daughter as Chowkidar and had unfortunately passed away on 29.10.2019 on having met with an accident while Amarjit upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court based on which an amendment in the Instructions specifying a in wake of Balbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, ubmits that there e and further claim, that petitioner No.1, widow of the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.08.08 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15737-2025 (O&M) -2- in the Indian Navy are untenable in view of Canara Bank and another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412. Since the aforesaid amendment came on 29.01.2024, the application was filed immediately thereafter on 09.02.2024, thus, there was not a gap of 2 years as alleged. 3. The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions from Mr. Manoj Garg, Legal Assistant, Department of Technical Education, states that the respondents would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and decide afresh, taking note of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, within a period of 4 months, uninfluenced by the order impugned in the present case, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 4. The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioners are found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to them and shall contain reasons, whereupon they shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) 07.08.2025 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.08.08 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document