Pending family-pension representation must be decided on merits within four weeks.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to pay her 100% of the family pension, with arrears from 12 February 2013, when payment was stopped following the marriage of the deceased employee’s first wife’s daughter.

The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 14 October 2020 to the second respondent, which remained pending.

The Court noted that there was no appearance for the petitioner or the first respondent.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for payment of 100% family pension and arrears from 12 February 2013.

Whether, instead of deciding the pension claim on its merits, the Court should direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s pending representation.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a writ of mandamus.

Where a relevant representation remains pending, the Court may direct the competent authority to consider it and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law, without itself determining the underlying claim.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s representation concerning her claim was still awaiting consideration by the second respondent.

Given that pending representation, and without examining the merits of the claim to family pension or arrears, the Court considered it appropriate to require the second respondent to decide the representation in accordance with law.

It directed the second respondent to consider the representation dated 14 October 2020 and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of, with no order as to costs.