PHHC011169192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 CWP-21859-2026 Date of decision : 20.07.2026 Santosh Kumari ….Petitioner V/S State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter/order dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-6), whereby the representation of the petitioner for consideration of her claim for counting the services rendered by her deceased husband, namely Ramesh Lal, as Special Police Officer (SPO) prior to his regularization, towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits has been closed on administrative grounds instead of being forwarded to the competent authority. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the death-cum-retirement benefits (DCRG) and monthly family pension to the petitioner by counting the services rendered by her deceased husband as a Special Police Officer prior to his regularization along with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled as ‘Harbans Lal VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.20 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document PHHC011169192026 CWP-21859-2026 -2- Vs. The State of Punjab and others’ decided on 31.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) which has been followed in CWP No.9936 of 2017 titled as ‘Sukhjeet Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others’ decided on 15.02.2018 (Annexure P-4) and similar benefits have been granted by the respondents themselves, vide orders dated 30.09.2020 & 19.10.2020 (Annexures P-7 & P-8). However, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, vide impugned letter/order dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-6) without assigning any reasons and the same is being cryptic and non-speaking is liable to be set aside. 3. On receipt of advance copy of the petition, Mr. Rohit Ahuja, D.A.G., Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents-State and does not refute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is partly allowed and the impugned letter/order dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P- 6), being cryptic and non-speaking, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the representation dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) submitted by the petitioner, in view of the judgments as referred above, by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order 20.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) kothiyal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.20 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document