Disposed¶20

Sareen Rani v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2025CWP/4246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation benefits; death of part-time employee appointed 24.12.1987, died 10.08.2017; dependent petitioner's claim; letter dated 22.01.2019 listing her with 13 others for regularisation; reliance on Beant Kaur vs. State of Punjab, CWP-17852-1999 (decided 14.05.2001), daily-wage worker regularised after 10 years, benefits to dependents; writ disposed with direction to decide claim within 4 months; notice and hearing before decision; reasoned adverse order; liberty to seek legal redress; State of Punjab and Others; CWP-4246-2022 (O&M).

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim within 4 months, after notice and hearing, granting the benefit forthwith if found entitled; adverse orders to carry reasons. ¶20

Sareen Rani Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim within 4 months, after notice and hearing, granting the benefit forthwith if found entitled; adverse orders to carry reasons.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose mother was appointed on 24.12.1987 on part-time basis and died on 10.08.2017, is entitled to have her claim for regularisation benefits considered in terms of the letter dated 22.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) and the judgment in Beant Kaur vs. State of Punjab.

¶19

Court's answer

Without commenting on the merits, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim, taking note of the Beant Kaur judgment and the letter dated 22.01.2019, within a period of 4 months.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The consideration is to be done after notice and hearing offered to the petitioner, and if she is found entitled, the benefit is to be granted forthwith.

¶20

Key takeaways

Any order adverse to the petitioner must contain reasons, and she remains free to seek legal redress against it.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil writ petition (CWP-4246-2022 (O&M)) against State of Punjab and Others. The petitioner's mother was appointed on 24.12.1987 on part-time basis and passed away on 10.08.2017; per a letter dated 22.01.2019, her services, along with those of 13 others, were to be considered for regularisation. Learned counsel, relying on Beant Kaur vs. State of Punjab, CWP-17852-1999, decided on 14.05.2001 (Division Bench), wherein a daily-wage worker with 10 years' service was deemed regularised and dependents held entitled to the benefits flowing therefrom, sought time-bound consideration of the petitioner's case, to which State counsel had no objection. Without commenting on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the claim within 4 months, after notice and hearing, granting the benefit forthwith if found entitled; any adverse order must contain reasons, leaving the petitioner free to seek legal redress.

�� 

��

��CWP-4246-2022��

��

�� ��

��

State of Punjab and Others

��

��

��

�� !��"��#$�%�&�"��'��

¶12

��'�()��#'�&�$�*'%�&&!��(�) ��

¶13

��

¶14

+'�� ,��'�� #��'�� #��- �� -��'�� -��'�� -��'��%�.'��.��.��*��#��.�� '��!�"��-��, ��'��$��!��$��%��-�

¶15

2 . Learned counsel states that the mother of the petitioner had been appointed on 24.12.1987 on part-time basis and unfortunately passed away on 10.08.2017. Be that as it may, as is apparent from the letter dated 22.01.2019, her services along with 13 others, were to be considered for regularisation, had she been alive, the aforesaid benefit could have granted to her. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Beant Kaur vs. State of Punjab in CWP-17852-1999, decided on 14.05.2001, wherein similar set of circumstances, the petitioner was working on daily wage basis, had continued in service for 10 years, his services were deemed to be regularised and held that the dependents would be entitled to the benefits flowing therefrom, her

¶16

MOHIT 2025.01.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-2-

¶18

CWP-4246-2022 (O&M)

¶19

status being that of regular Government servant. Thus, he on instructions from the petitioner, prays that her case be considered, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment and the letter dated 22.01.2019, Annexure P-5, in a time bound manner, to which learned State counsel has no objection .

¶20

In view of the above and without commenting on the merits of the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner, taking note of the aforesaid, within a period of 4 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and hearing offered to her and if found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to her interest, the same shall contain reasons and the petitioner shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon�

¶21

�� !�!" ��/�-�� 0'��'�� *��#1�� 2��1��3� 0'��'�� )$�� 2��1��3�

¶22

MOHIT 2025.01.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sareen Rani v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sareen Rani 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Dr Gagandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gopal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Aashi Sharda and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Shabdesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajinder Bir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others