In this family pension petition, the petitioner claimed pension for her deceased husband who worked as a daily wage worker. The single-judge court dismissed the claim as the Supreme Court had over-ruled earlier judgments supporting similar claims.
Petition dismissed due to over-ruling of prior favorable judgments by the Supreme Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 19095 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : 17.04.2009
Sumitra Devi
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
In this petition, the only prayer made is for grant of family pension to the petitioner. Her husband expired on 3.6.1987. He worked with the respondents as daily wage worker for more than six years. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions of this Court in the cases of Usha Rani v. State of Haryana and others, 2004 (4) Recent Services Judgments 546 (DB) and Rama Devi v. State of Haryana and others, 2005 (3) Recent Services Judgments 695 (DB). It is the conceded position that both these judgments have been over-ruled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Shakuntla Devi, JT
CWP No. 19095 of 2007
-2-
2008 (12) SC 48.
In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
April 17, 2009 ndj
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of family pension given the Supreme Court has over-ruled earlier judgments supporting such claims.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Usha Rani v. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶14
Usha Rani v. State of Haryana and others, 2004 (4) Recent Services Judgments 546 (DB)
Rama Devi v. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶14
Rama Devi v. State of Haryana and others, 2005 (3) Recent Services Judgments 695 (DB)
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Shakuntla DeviDistinguished¶14
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Shakuntla Devi, JT 2008 (12) SC 48 · Who else cites this
Sumitra Devi
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
Satish Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
