1. Land acquisition policy providing employment to one family member — Appointment of widow of a deceased candidate — Dispute over eligibility of another family member. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
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.
Under a policy providing employment to one member of a family whose land is acquired, once an appointment is granted (even to the widow of a deceased sanctioned candidate), no further appointment can be made to another member of the same family.
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)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the widow of a deceased candidate qualifies as a family member of the land owner for the purpose of employment under the acquisition policy. (Para 4 )
3. The widow was appointed in place of her husband for whom sanction had been granted; subsequent appointment of another family member is not permissible. (Para 5 )
4. Once employment is provided to one member of the family under an acquisition policy, no further appointment can be made to another member of the same family. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed and the writ petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Does the appointment of a widow in place of her deceased husband satisfy the policy of providing employment to one family member of a land owner?
Yes. If sanction was previously granted to the husband and the widow is appointed in his place, the requirement to provide employment to one member of the family is considered fulfilled. (Para 5 )
7. Can multiple members of the same family be appointed under a policy that provides employment to only one member of the family?
No. Once an appointment has been made to one member of the family, there cannot be a direction for the appointment of another member from the same family. (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
