SUNITA vs STATE OF HARYANA ANDANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 120 CWP-13374-2026 Date of Decision: 01.05.2026 SUNITA ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. R.K. Girdhwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Akshit Pathania, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 01.04.2026 whereby petitioner’s claim has been rejected on the ground that deceased was more than 60 years old. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased was 56 years and 8 months old on the date of death. All the documents except current data of Parivar Pehchan Patra (for short ‘PPP’)is disclosing that deceased was more than 60 years old. The respondent has ignored date of birth of the deceased. 3. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner may be directed to seek amendment in PPP. The moment PPP data is amended, the petitioner’s claim would be entertained. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.01 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13374-2026 -2- 4. Faced wit