Case Note & Summary
The case concerned a widow's claim for appointment under a rehabilitation scheme for dependents of a government servant who died in harness. The appellant, Jethi Devi, was the widow of Om Dass, a government servant. After his death, she was appointed as a Class IV employee under the scheme, but her services were later terminated by the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Aggrieved, she filed Suit No.6/88 before the Subordinate Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, seeking restoration of her appointment. The trial court decreed the suit on 30 November 1989, and the first appellate court affirmed that decree. However, in second appeal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reversed the lower courts' decisions on 22 October 1993 in RSA No.261/92, holding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the rehabilitation scheme because an enquiry conducted by the respondent Board revealed that she had married Chandermani, the brother of her deceased husband, and had concealed this fact along with the birth of a daughter. The High Court also held that she gave a false affidavit and therefore was not a widow of the deceased employee. The matter reached the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court examined the written statement filed by the respondent in the trial court which enclosed an enquiry report by S.D.O.(c) Chachiot. That report disclosed that the appellant, her deceased husband Om Dass, and Chandermani were living together as members of a Hindu joint family. The enquiry also revealed that no marriage was solemnised between Chandermani and the appellant, though a child was born to them after Om Dass's death. The Court identified three crucial facts: first, Chandermani, Om Dass, the appellant and other members were living together as members of a Hindu joint family; second, Om Dass, the government servant, died in harness; third, after his demise, although the appellant was living with Chandermani, no legally solemnised marriage took place between them. They were merely living together as man and woman, and a child was born. The core legal issues were whether the appellant made any false statement about her marital status or dependence, and whether she ceased to be the widow of Om Dass. The Supreme Court held that since no legally solemnised marriage existed between the appellant and Chandermani, the appellant was not incorrect in stating that she was the widow of Om Dass. Furthermore, because all were members of a joint family, her statement about dependence was not false. Excluding these two aspects, there was no other ground to disentitle her from claiming appointment under the rehabilitation scheme. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in reversing the trial court's decree and dismissing the suit. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's decree was restored. However, the Court directed that the appellant would be entitled to back wages from 30 November 1989 only, the date on which the suit was decreed. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Rehabilitation Scheme - Entitlement of Widow to Appointment - Not mentioned - The widow of a government servant who died in harness claimed appointment as Class IV employee under rehabilitation scheme. Her services were terminated on allegation that she had married her deceased husband's brother and concealed the marriage and birth of daughter, and gave false affidavit. The Supreme Court held that since no legally solemnised marriage took place between the appellant and her brother-in-law, she was not incorrect in stating that she was the widow of the deceased and her statement of dependence was not false as they lived as members of a joint family. Therefore, High Court erred in reversing the trial court's decree. Held, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the rehabilitation scheme. (Paras 1-2) B) Hindu Law - Marriage and Solemnisation - Legal Marriage Requires Solemnisation - Not mentioned - The court considered whether the appellant's living with her brother-in-law and bearing a child after her husband's death amounted to remarriage. It held that no legally solemnised marriage took place; they were merely living together as man and woman. Hence, her status as widow of Om Dass remained unchanged. This factual finding negated the allegation of false statement. Held that the High Court's contrary conclusion was erroneous. (Paras 1-2) C) Service Law - Back Wages - Date from Which Back Wages Awarded - Not mentioned - The court restored the trial court decree which had granted appointment. However, it modified the relief of back wages, holding that the appellant will be entitled to back wages from 30.11.1989 only, the date on which the suit was decreed, not earlier. Held, no costs. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant made any false statement about her marital status or dependence; whether she ceased to be widow of Om Dass due to living with brother-in-law and having a child; whether she was entitled to appointment under rehabilitation scheme.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; trial court decree restored; appellant entitled to back wages from 30-11-1989 only; no costs
Law Points
- Rehabilitation scheme benefit cannot be denied when no false statement made
- Living as man and woman without legal solemnisation does not amount to marriage
- Widow's statement of dependence in joint family is not false
- Back wages awarded from date of trial court decree
