Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.55 seconds)
Paramjit Kaur vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 7 March, 2026 cites

Shanti Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 7 April, 1999

6. Learned counsel submitted that the husband of the petitioner was working as ASSA with the then HSEB, now respondent-Nigam. Unfortunately, on 10.11.1991, he died in harness. The petitioner was granted family pension and, appointment as Peon on compassionate grounds after his death. Subsequently, in the year 1992, the petitioner was wedded to Satywan Singh, real brother of the deceased, by way of karewa marriage. Thereafter, the family pension was stopped in her name and initiated in the name of her daughter with the deceased-Sarita Rani w.e.f. 05.01.1995. However, Sarita Rani got married in October, 2008 and the family pension was transferred to their son-Manjit Singh w.e.f. 01.11.2008. The family pension of the son of the petitioner was stopped in January, 2017 when he attained the age of 25 years. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Shanti Devi vs. State of Haryana and others CWP No.17970-2008 (Annexure P-4) and Angrejo Devi vs. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others CWP No.17440-2011 (Annexure P-5) wherein, it was opined that family pension of a widow cannot be stopped on account of karewa marriage. The respondent-Nigam has rejected the genuine claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 18.05.2017 (Annexure P-6) by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order. Lastly, the act and conduct of the respondent-Nigam in unjustly withholding family pension, being property in terms of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, also entitles the petitioner to interest upon the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

11. Oftentimes, retiral benefits are the only source of income for many families, especially when the primary breadwinner has passed away. The kin of the retired/deceased employees not only rely on the same for fiscal security but 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 20:59:21 ::: CWP-2192-2024 CWP-30264-2018 -8- CWP-5330-2022 also for their very survival. It was also observed in D.K. Nakara and others vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 that pension and retiral benefits are not bounty by nature but in fact, are akin to wages, relied upon the pensioner and his family for assistance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory Of ... on 13 January, 1981

12. Furthermore, the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not limited to mere animal -like existence but includes the right to live a dignified meaningful life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608 has opined that any act offending human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further clarified that bare necessities such as "adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings"
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 341 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next