Holding

The appellant did not make a false statement; no legally solemnised marriage existed, so she remained a widow and is entitled to the appointment and back wages.

Summary

The appellant, a widow of a deceased government employee, was appointed to a Class IV post on compassionate grounds under a rehabilitation scheme. Her services were later terminated on the ground that she had allegedly married her late husband's brother and concealed this marriage and the birth of a child, which the Board claimed made her ineligible. The appellant challenged the termination, and while lower courts upheld her claim, the High Court reversed the decision, holding that she was no longer a widow and had made a false statement. The Supreme Court examined the enquiry report and found that no legally solemnised marriage existed and that her statement of being a widow and dependent was not false. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court erred, restored the trial court's decree, and awarded back wages from the date of the decree. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant made a false statement by claiming to be the widow of the deceased employee.
Whether the alleged marriage to the brother-in-law disqualified her from the rehabilitation scheme.
Whether the termination of her appointment was valid under the scheme.

Subjects

compassionate appointmentwidowrehabilitation schemefalse statementjoint familytermination of servicesgovernment employeeback wages

Judgment

,.. 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
atlirmed by the First Appellate Court. However, on second appeal the High F
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,
the appellant is not incorrect in stating that she is the widow of the deceased
v
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.

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.
c
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.

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.
E 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,
F 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. One,
Chandermani, Om Dass, the appellant and other members were living B
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 marriage took place. In other words, they were living together
as man and woman and a child was born to them. c
.- _.-/

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 D
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.
E
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.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.