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 :
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
-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
F
G
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.
Lex