Skip to content


Haryana State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Maha Singh and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Constitution ;Service

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 3137 of 1997 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4920 of 1997)

Judge

Reported in

AIR1997SC2553; JT1997(5)SC414; 1997(4)SCALE250; (1997)5SCC324; [1997]3SCR899; 1997(2)LC188(SC)

Appellant

Haryana State Electricity Board and Another

Respondent

Maha Singh and Another

Appellant Advocate

 K.K. Jain,; Ajay K. Jain,; Shashi Bhushan and;

Respondent Advocate

 R.K. Talwar and ; Goodwill Indeevar, Advs.

Prior history

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.97 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.1813 of 1996

Excerpt:


- indian evidence act, 1872 section 3: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] circumstantial evidence -inference of guilt held, all incriminating facts and circumstances should be found to be incompatible with innocence of accused. circumstances have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested by touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by supreme court. indian penal code, 1890 sections 300 & 120-b: criminal conspiracy and murder - circumstance of last seen with - appellants allegedly made deceased and his wife drink coffee by pouring sleeping pills in it and gave deceased five injections of poison dead body was found days after accused persons were seen in company of deceased - cause of death not established to be due to organo phosphorous which was administered to deceased held, evidence adduced is shaky. conviction of appellants would be unsafe......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.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 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 court was not.....

Judgment:


K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.

1. 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 Sigh. 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 to the first respondent was 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 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 Court was not right in giving direction to appoint the respondent.

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




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //