Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JETHI DEVI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (6) 61 1995 SCALE (5)171
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
and decree dated October 22, 1993 of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in RSA No.261/92. Admitted facts are that
when Om Dass, a Government servant died in harness, a prayer
was made to rehabilitate one of the dependents. His widow,
the appellant herein laid the claim for appointment as a
Class IV employee and was so appointed . When her services
were terminated , she filed Suit No.6/88 filed in the court
of Subordinate Judge, Mandi, H.P. and the Chief Judge by the
judgment and decree dated November 30, 1989 decreed the
suit. On appeal, it was confirmed. But in the second appeal,
the High Court reversed the decree primarily on the ground
that in the enquiry conducted by the respondent Board
revealed that the appellant had married Chandermani, the
brother of Om Dass, and she concealed the factum of marriage
and the birth of a daughter. Therefore, she is not a widow
of Om Dass, the deceased employee. It was also found that
she gave a false affidavit. Consequently, she is not
entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation scheme.
The question is whether the appellant had made any false
statement. It is clear from the written statement filed by
the respondent in the trial Court, enclosing the enquiry
report submitted by S.D.O.(c) Chachiot ,that the appellant
and her husband Om Dass were living as members of the Hindu
joint family with Chandermani, her brother-in-law, and other
members. On enquiry , it was also revealed that the marriage
between Chandermani and the appellant was not solemnised and
a child was born to the latter.
Under these circumstances, three crucial facts emerge.
One,Chandermani, Om Dass, the appellant and other members
were living together as members of the Hindu joint family.
Second, Om Dass, the Government servant , died in harness.
Third, it would appear that after the demise, though the
appellant was living with Chandermani, no legally solemnised
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
marriage took place. In other words, they were living
together as man and woman and woman and a child was born to
them.
The question which, therefore, emerges is whether the
appellant made any false statement and whether she ceased to
be widow of Om Dass. In view of the fact that no legally
solemnised marriage exists, she is not incorrect in stating
that she is the widow of Om Dass. It is also revealed that
since they are the members of the joint family, her
statement about the dependence is not false. If these two
facts are excluded, there is no other ground to disentitle
her to claim for the benefit of appointment as per the
rehabilitation scheme. Accordingly, we hold that the High
Court was not right in reversing the decree of the trial
Court and the appellate Court and dismissing the suit.
The appeal is allowed . The decree of the trial court
is restored. However, the appellant will be entitled to back
wages from 30.11.1989 only, the date on which the suit was
decreed. No costs.