JETHI DEVI versus BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 24-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

JETHI DEVI 
A 
,.. 
v. 
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ANR. 
AUGUST 24, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.J.] 
B 
Se1vice Law. 
Compassionate appointment-4.Jovernment employee-Death 
of-Widow-Appointment of-Tennination-4.Jround of Concealment of c 
maniage-Employers' enquitj--Rep01t that widow living with brother-in-law 
but maniage not legally solemnized-Held wife of deceased was light in 
stating that she was widow of deceased e1;1ployee-Held not guilty of making 
false statement-Temiination-Held invalid. 
The appellant, wife of a deceased Government employee, was ap· D 
pointed to a class IV post by the Respondent-Board on compassionate 
grounds. Later, her services were terminated on the ground that she was 
not entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation scheme as she had married the 
brother of her deceased husband; concealed the factum of marriage and 
birth of daughter. The enciuiry conducted by the respondent-Board E 
revealed that (i) the appellant was living as member of joint family with 
her brother-in-law and other members; (ii) after the death ·of appellant's 
husband she was living with her brother-in-law and a child was born to 
her but no legally solemnized marriage took place. The appellant filed a 
suit challenging the dismissal which was decreed by the Trial Court and F 
atlirmed by the First Appellate Court. However, on second appeal the High 
Court dismissed the appellant's suit and reversed the decree of courts 
below holding that the appellant ceased to be the widow of the deceased 
employee and that she gave a false statement. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
G 
HELD : In view of the fact that no legally solemnized marriage exists, 
v 
the appellant is not incorrect in stating that she is the widow of the deceased 
Government employee. It is also evident that being the member 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 H 
53 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
benefit of appointment as per the rehabilitation scheme. Therefore, the 
High Court was not right in reversing the decree of the trial court and the 
First Appellate Court and dismissing the suit. The appellant will be entitled 
to back wages from the date on which the suit was decreed. [55-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7920 of 
B 
1995. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.93 of the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court in RS.A. No. 261 of 1992. 
Anil Nag and Rajeev Kr. Singh for the Appellant. 
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Ms. Pramit Saxena and S.V. Deshpande for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
D 
Leave granted. 
E 
F 
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 
G 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 
H the appellant and her husband Om Dass were living as members of the 
• • 
JETH! DEVI v. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BD. 
55 
Hindu joint family with chandermani, her brother-in-law, and other mem-
A 
bers. On enquiry, it was also revealed that the marriage between Chander-
mani and the appellant was not solemnised and a child was born to the 
latter. 
Under these circumstances, three crucial facts emerge.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.