SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 715

1997(4) Supreme 661
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Maha Singh & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3137 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4920 of 1997)
Decided on 21-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.K. Jain, Ajay K. Jain, Shashi Bhushan and Pramod Dayal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R.K. Talwar and Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law-Employment to one of the members of family whose land was acquired as per policy of acquisition-Brother of respondent appointed-Before appointment could be made, he died-Appointment given to his widow-She having been appointed, there could not be a direction for appointment of another member from same family-High Court was not right in giving direction to appoint respondent. (Para 5)

       

Order

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, made on January 17,1987 in CWP No. 1813/96.

3. The admitted position is that as per the policy of acquisition, the appellants are required to provide an employment to one of the members of the family whose land is acquired. The cut-off date prescribed was December 13, 1991. One Shamsher Singh, brother of the respondent and son of the owner had applied for appointment. Since he was not being considered, he filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court directed the Board-appellant to appoint Shamsher Singh. However, before appointment could to be made, he died. Consequently, his wife Smt. Suresh Bala applied for and was appointed. Subsequently, the respondent applied for appointment but he was not given appointment as appointment had already been given to the widow of Shamsher Singh. Consequently, he filed writ petition. The same stand has been taken in the High Court; the Division Bench has held that in view of the policy that employment will be provided to one of the members of the family of the owner, appointment of the first respondent us required to be made and appointment of Suresh Bala is illegal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri Goodwill Indeevar, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the land belonged to the mother of the respondent and she gave consent for appointment of Shamsher Singh. After his demise, she gave consent to the employment of respondent, her second son. The very object is to provide assistance to the displaced persons due to the acquisition. As Shamsher Singh died, the necessary appointment should be given to one of the members of the family of the owner. The widow of Shamsher is not the member of the family of the owner. Therefore, it is argued that her appointment is illegal in law.

5. However, she being widow had applied for appointment in place of her husband, Shamsher Singh; admittedly, sanction was given for giving appointment to her husband, of Shamsher Singh. The appellants have acceded to her request and gave appointment to Suresh Bala. She having been appointed, there cannot be a direction for appointment of another member from the same family. Therefore, the High is was not right in giving direction to appoint the respondent.

6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Appeal allowed.

********

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Maha Singh, 1997(4) Supeme 661

00025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top