Supreme Court of India

HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.versusMAHA SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: 1997 INSC 424
Decided: 21 April 1997
Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYD P WADHWA

Holding

The appointment of the widow satisfies the policy of providing employment to a member of the landowner's family, precluding any further appointment from the same family.

Summary

The Haryana State Electricity Board (the Board) had a policy that, when land was acquired, one member of the landowner's family must be given employment. Shamsher Singh, a son of the landowner, applied for appointment but died before the Board could appoint him. The Board then appointed his widow, Smt. Suresh Bala, in his place. Later, the landowner's second son, Maha Singh, applied for appointment but was denied because the widow had already been appointed. He filed a writ petition, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Board to appoint him, holding the widow's appointment illegal. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the widow's appointment satisfied the policy and that no further appointment could be made from the same family, thereby allowing the Board's appeal and dismissing the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of the widow of a deceased applicant fulfills the statutory requirement to provide employment to a member of the landowner's family.
Whether a second family member can be appointed when one member of the same family has already been appointed under the acquisition policy.

Subjects

Service lawLand acquisitionEmployment appointmentFamily member eligibilityWrit petitionSupreme Court of India

Judgment

        HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.                              A
                           v.
                  MAHA SINGH AND ANR.

                             APRIL 21, 1997

              [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]                             B

        Service Law :

      Appointment-Po/icy of Haryana Electricity Board to appoint one
member from the family from which land had been acquired-Widow of land
owner's son appointed-Subsequent application by another son for employ-       C
ment-High Court giving direction for his appointme11t-011 appeal, held,
since the widow of one so11 has already been appoi11ted, there could not be
a direction for appoi11tment of another member from the same famil~Hence
High Court was 1101 right in giving direction for appoilllment.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3137 of                D
1997.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.97 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1813 of 1996.

     K.K. Jain, Ajay K. Jain, Shashi Bhushan and Pramod Dayal for the         E
Appellants.

        R.K. Talwar and Goodwill lndeevar for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court wad delivered :
                                                                              F
        Leave granted.

     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.

       The admitted position is that as per the policy of acquisition, the
                                                                              G
-appellants are required to provide an employment to one of the members
 of the family whose land is acquired. The cutt-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 H
                                      899
    900                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A 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 Sigh. Consequently, he filed
    writ petition. The same stand has been taken in the High Court; the
B   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
    to the first respondent was required to be made and appointment of Suresh
    Bala is illegal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

           Shri Goodwill Indeevar, learned counsel for the respondents, con·
C   tends 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
D   of 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 Jaw.

          However, she being widow had applied for appointment in place of
    her husband, Shamsher Singh; admittedly, sanction was given for giving
E   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 Court was not right in
    giving direction to appoint the respondent.
F        The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dis-
    missed. No costs.

     G.N.                                                      Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Service law"Sign in to search