Prem Kanta and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Respec�ve husbands of the pe��oners were appointed as regular Tubewell Operators in the Irriga�on Department in the State of Punjab. The Tubewell Circle of the Irriga�on Branch were transferred to the Punjab State Tubewell Corpora�on and the Tubewell Operators of the Irriga�on Department were permanently absorbed w.e.f. 09.12.1983.

¶10

By way of this pe��on filed under Ar�cles 226 and 227 of the Cons�tu�on of India, pe��oners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus by direc�ng the respondents to grant the family pension to the pe��oners being widows of the deceased employees of the respondents.

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the pe��oner that the case of the pe��oners is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.4951 and 4952 of 2009 �tled as “The State of Punjab and another v. Mohinderjit Kaur (D) Th. L.R. ”, whereby the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.13555 of 1994, �tled as “Phullan Rani v. State of Punjab and others” decided on 09.12.2004, was confirmed and it was held that the wives of the Tubewell Operators, who had served as confirmed employees of the Irriga�on Department in the State of Punjab and transferred to the Punjab State Tubewell Corpora�on, are en�tled to the family pension.

¶12

Learned counsel for the pe��oners also contends that the similarly situated employees had filed numerous writ pe��ons, which were disposed of by a composite order dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure P-14) by this

¶13

Sarita Rani 2025.01.17 15:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶14

CWP-1189-2025 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:006574

¶15

Court. Pe��oners also served a legal no�ce dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P- 11) to the respondents to grant them the same relief, but no ac�on has been taken thereon �ll date.

¶16

No�ce of mo�on.

¶17

Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts no�ce on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5 – State and Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate puts in appearance and accepts no�ce on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents have no objec�on to take decision on the legal no�ce dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-11), in the light of the judgment dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure P-14) passed by this Court.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the par�es and have gone through the file.

¶20

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the pe��oner in the present pe��on, respondent No.4 is hereby directed to consider the grievances put forth by the pe��oners in the legal no�ce dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-11), in the light of the judgment dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure P-14) passed by this Court, by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of cer�fied copy of this order.

¶21

Present pe��on is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

January 17, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶23

Sarita Rani 2025.01.17 15:17 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Prem Kanta and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kanta and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mathura Dass Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

J.S Brar Vs Punjab Financial Corpn Chd & Ors.

Karanveer Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Kaka Ram Vs State of Punjab and Others

Baij Nath Vs State of Punjab and Others