Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SUNITA BHADOORIA versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' CHIEF SECRE. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Sunita Bhadooria v. State Of U.P. Thru' Chief Secre. And Another - WRIT - A No. 73391 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7123 (7 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

A.F.R

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 73391 OF 2005

Smt Sunita Bhadooria            -------------    Petitioner              

   Versus.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. -------------        Respondents

_________

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble  Dilip Gupta, J.

(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J)

This writ petition has been filed  for quashing the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules 1974) as being ultra vires  Articles 14 and 39 (a) of the Constitution of India as a son and daughter have to be treated at par and require equal protection of law. A further relief has been sought for quashing the order dated 17.11.2005, by which the petitioner has been denied appointment on compassionate ground.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner claims to be the only child. Her mother died on 15.7.2001 in harness while working as Beldar in U.P. Power Corporation. She filed an application for compassionate employment. As there had been no response by the respondents, the last reminder was filed on 9.11.2005, which has been rejected vide letter dated 17.11.2005, on the ground that the Rules do not provide for compassionate employment to married daughter. Hence this petition.

Shri A.P.N. Giri, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that son and daughter cannot be given different treatment. The definition of 'family' in Section 2 (c) requires to be quashed, as does not include married daughters but includes the sons and unmarried daughters. Thus, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Rules have been framed for the benefit of the bereaved family, and social welfare legislation requires liberal interpretation. He, therefore, submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent has vehemently opposed the petition, submitting that the petition does not disclose full facts. There is no pleading about the status of the petitioner's father and it has not been mentioned as to how she claims to be wholly dependant upon the deceased mother in spite of being married, and nor  has it been disclosed as on what day she got married, though she is 32 years of age. There is no evidence or reliable document on record to show that she had ever made any representation/application for employment on compassionate ground prior to 9.11.2005, which stood rejected vide letter dated 17.11.2005. The averments to the effect that she had been making representations repeatedly seem to be without any basis and are afterthought. It is for the legislature to determine the manner it wants to grant relief to the people. The petition cannot be entertained on such vague pleadings. More so, the petitioner cannot claim to be a member of the two families simultaneously. In case the married daughter is included in the family definition of her parents, she cannot claim herself to be a family member of her husband. Therefore, the averments made in the petition are contradictory, and the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  The admitted facts as they emerge, as under:-

1.Petitioner has not disclosed whether her father is alive, and if not, then when did he die and what was his status.

2.Petitioner has not revealed as on what date she got married and what is the financial condition of her husband.

3.Petitioner has not indicated how she was dependant upon her  mother if her husband was alive.

4.Petitioner has received (as death-cum-retiremental benefit) a sum of Rs.3,72,750/-,  which shall be sufficient for her.

5.It is not the part of the pleading as to whether the Rules 1974 have ever been adopted by the respondent-Corporation.

If the case is examined in view of the aforesaid admitted facts, it will be a futile exercise to proceed with the case,  in the absence of any material pleading regarding adoption of the said Rules by the Corporation, and without disclosing the father's status and without disclosing the financial condition of the petitioner's husband. The petition has been filed in a most casual and caveliar manner and it does not warrant any decision whatsoever. Filing this kind of petition is not only abuse of the process of the Court but amounts to criminal contempt, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619. The Court has observed as under:-

"Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession, as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings, many times even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties, yet al. They do not realize the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system" (Emphasis added).

In view of the above, the petition does not deserve to be decided. However, even if it is presumed that the 1974 Rules have been adopted, the Court has to examine the purpose of framing of the said Rules, as is evident from the  title of the Rules 1974. This is applicable only in the case of the dependants of the government servants. Therefore, the first issue which arises is whether the petitioner can claim herself to be a  dependant of her deceased mother and for want of pleadings this issue cannot be decided. The definition of 'family' includes unmarried and widowed daughters. Thus, it impliedly excludes the married daughter. The said clause (3) of sub-rule (2) of Rules 1974 does not warrant any quashing, nor it can be held to be ultra vires  any of the provisions of the Constitution, for the reason that married daughters form part of  the family member of their husbands.

Thus, in view of the above, the petition is totally misconceived. Even otherwise, the issue of compassionate employment has been considered by the Court from time to time.

An employment on compassionate ground should be provided  strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Court cannot take a view so as to make it violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.(Vide Cochin Dock Labour Board Vs. Leemamma Samuel & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 87). The Court should not stretch  the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. (Vide U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Pukhraj Singh & Ors., (1999)1 SCC 190; and A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. K. Pochaiah & Anr.,(1999) 1 SCC 191).

Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on  compassionate grounds  has  been carved out  in  order  to  remove  the  financial constraints  on the bereaved family which has lost its bread-earner. Mere  death of a Government employee  in harness does not entitle the  family to claim compassionate employment. The   Competent Authority  has to examine the financial condition of the family  of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet  the  crisis, that a job is  to  be offered to  the  eligible member of  the  family. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as  a  matter of right, it  being not a vested right.

In  Smt Sushma  Gosain & Ors. Vs.  Union of India  & Ors., AIR  1989  SC 1976, the Apex Court held  as under:-

"It  can be stated unequivocally that  in all claims for appointment on compassionate ground, there should not be any delay in appointment.  The purpose of providing appointment on  compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.  It is improper to keep such case  pending for years.  If there is  no suitable    post for appointment, supernumerary  post should be created  to accommodate the applicant."

The aforesaid judgment was approved and the principle laid down therein was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.  Phoolwati Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 469.

In  Umesh  Kumar  Nagpal  Vs. State  of  Haryana &  Ors.,  (1994) 4 SCC 138,  the  Hon'ble  Apex Court has considered the nature of the right  which a dependant  can  claim while seeking  employment  on  compassionate ground.  The  Court  has observed as under:-  

"It  appears  that there has been a  good  deal  of obfuscation on the issue.  As  a  rule,  appointment in the public services  should be made strictly on the basis  of  open  invitation  of   applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is  permissible. Neither the Governments nor the  public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case,  there  are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain  contingencies.   One  such exception  is in favour of the dependants of  an  employee  dying  in  harness  and  leaving  his family in penury and without any  means of livelihood.  In such cases, out  of  pure humanitarian  consideration  taking  into consideration the fact  that unless  some  source  of  livelihood   is  provided, the family would not be able to make  both ends meet, a provision is made in   the   rules   to   provide   gainful employment to one of the dependants  of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate  employment  is,  thus,  to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The  object  is not to  give  a  member  of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased.  What is  further, mere death of an employee in harness  does  not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The  Government   or  the public   authority  concerned  has  to examine the financial condition of the family of the  deceased and  it  is only if it is satisfied  that but  for the provision of employment, the family  will  not  be able  to  meet  the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.......

.......The  favourable treatment given to such  dependant of the deceased  employee in  such posts has a rational nexus with the object  sought to be achieved, viz. relief  against  destitution.   No  other posts  are  expected  or required  to  be given  by the public authorities for  the purpose.   it must be remembered in  this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased,  there   are millions  of  other  families  which  are equally,  if  not more,  destitute. The exception  to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the  change in the status and affairs  of the family engendered by the  erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned....   Unmindful of this legal position, some  Governments  and  public authorities have  been offering compassionate  employment sometimes as  a matter of course  irrespective  of  the financial condition of the family of the  deceased.......   The decision does  not justify  compassionate employment either as  a  matter  of  course....   The only ground which can ustify  compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family...... The consideration for such employment is not a  vested right.... The object being  to enable  the  family  to get over the financial crisis.  (Emphasis added).    

The  same  view  has been  reiterated  in Jagdish Prasad  Vs.  State of Bihar & Anr., (1996) 1 SCC 301;  State  of Bihar & Ors. Vs.  Samsuz Zoha Ors., AIR  1996 SC 1961; Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar,  (1996) 4 SCC 560; and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. A.  Radhika  Thirumalai (Smt.), (1996) 6 SCC 394. It has categorically been held that compassionate  employment cannot be  claimed as a matter of course since it is not a vested right.  

In Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs.  Hakim Singh, JT 1997 (8) SC 332, the Hon'ble  Apex Court placed reliance upon the  judgments  referred to above and observed that the object of providing compassionate employment is only to  relieve the  family  from financial hardship. Therefore,  an 'ameliorating relief' should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of  recruitment to public employment.  

Similarly,  in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs.  Naresh Tanwar & Anr., (1996) 8 SCC 23, the Hon'ble  Apex Court reiterated and  followed the law laid  down in Umesh Nagpal's case (supra) and directed  the applicants involved therein to  apply for employment on compassionate ground "by giving full  details of the family  circumstances and the economic conditions."        

In  Director  of Education (Secondary)  & Anr.  Vs.   Pushpendra Kumar & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 192, the Apex Court has observed as under:-      

"The  object  underlying a provision  for grant of compassionate employment is  to  enable the  family of the deceased  employee  to tide over the sudden  crisis  resulting   due   to     death   of   the  bread-earner which has left the family in  penury and   without   any   means of livelihood. Out of pure  humanitarian consideration and having regard to  the fact   that   unless some source of livelihood  is provided, the family would not be able to make both the ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment  to one of the dependants  of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such  a  provision enables appointment being made  without following  the  said procedure, it  is  in the nature of  an exception  to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume    the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision.  Care has, therefore, to be taken  that  a  provision  for grant of compassionate employment,  which is in the nature of an exception  to the general provision, does not  unduly  interfere with the right of other persons who are  eligible for appointment  to  seek employment  against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision  enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds  for the dependant of a  deceased employee." (Emphasis added).        

In Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board Vs. Chhathu Ram & Ors.,  (1999)  5  SCC   673,  the  Hon'ble Supreme Court  held  that  in the   absence  of   the statutory provisions, an adopted son cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. Similarly, in General Secretary, American Express Bank Union Vs. American Express Bank Ltd., (1999) SCC (L&S) 1235, the  Hon'ble  Supreme Court held that  mere adoption  of recruitment policy in pursuance of a Settlement between the Union and the employer for compassionate   employment  of  the specified categories  of  relations of employees  on  their retirement, death or incapitation, cannot be enforced unless  adopted  by   the  employer  by  bringing  the  Standing  Order/Statutory  Rule. Similarly, in W.B. State Electricity Board  & Ors. Vs.  Sameer  K. Sarkar, ( 1999) 7 SCC 672, the   Hon'ble Apex Court   held   that   embargo on compassionate  employment  in  case of  death  of employee  within two years prior to reaching  the age of superannuation, was not invalid.          

Undoubtedly,  in  Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. &                       Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493, the Hon'ble Supreme  Court  held that appointment  on  compassionate ground is not a vested right but it should not  be denied in deserving cases for the reason that it would tantamount to denial of  economic and social justice as enshrined in the  Constitution and law must be, in its adaptability and flexibility, applied  depending upon the situation for the benefit of the society.    

In Sanjay Kumar Vs.  State of Bihar & Ors., JT 2000 (10) SC 156, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated that the  purpose of  the rules  providing for compassionate employment is only to  enable the  family  of the deceased  employee  to  tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of  the bread-earner  who  had  left  the  family  in  penury without any means of livelihood, and that there cannot be a reservation of a vacancy for the dependants of the deceased  Government servant who died in harness. In  Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T., Nellore Vs. C.M. Pawana Kumari, 2001 AIR SCW 4779, the Apex Court held that direction cannot be  issued to appoint  a  person  on  compassionate ground de hores the scheme framed by the employer and nor the Court had a power to modify the scheme or  rules framed in  this  regard.  Similar view has been reiterated in the Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. K. Radha Krishna, 2001 AIR SCW 5190  while deciding a case of appointment on compassionate ground under Re-employment Children Quota provided  under the Circular issued by  the Corporation.

In  Surya  Kant  Kadam   Vs.   State   of  Karnataka  &  Ors.,  AIR 2001 SC 2415, the Apex Court held that in absence of any statutory rules, appointment on compassionate ground can be governed by the executive  instructions and in spite of  the  fact that the said  instructions may not have  a  statutory force, the  same  are bound to be observed by the employer.

In  State  of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Vipin Kumar, AIR 2002 SC 2867, the Apex Court held that compassionate employment is not given to offer a status on  a  family and no person can  claim  to have the  same  post  and if rules/  executive instructions  provide  that appointment shall  be made on a post one  stage below, it can be made not only on the next below  post  but to any other lower post  as the rules  provide only that the appointment  may  be offered  at least one step below the post the deceased Government Servant was holding and there can be no bar in  offering  a lower post  for  the reason that   the  purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to redeem the family from financial  constrains and not to confer any other benefit or status.

In  Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Awadesh Singh & Ors.,  (2001) 10 SCC 621, the Hon'ble Supreme Court  held  that if rule  prohibits  an appointment  on compassionate ground if any other member of  the family is already in service,  the said rule is valid and no direction can be issued against such a scheme.

While reiterating the purpose of making appointment on compassionate ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs.  Krishna  Devi,  2002 (2) LLJ 773, held  that the main object behind giving such employment is to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee. Such appointment cannot be made in absence of Rules   or Instructions. Application for such employment must be made within the period prescribed by the Rules/Instructions. Application made at a belated stage  cannot  be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the  purpose  of making such appointment stands evaporated.

In State of Manipur Vs. Mohd Rajaodin, (2003) 7 SCC 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue involved herein as in that case also the application was filed at a much belated stage as the dependant therein was 10 years of age at the time of death of his father. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the purpose of giving compassionate employment is only to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service, only to alleviate the distress of the family and at a belated stage as these grounds are no more in existence the employment cannot be given. While deciding the said case reliance had been placed upon its earlier judgments, particularly, in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Rani Devi & Anr., (1996) 5 SCC 308.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar & Anr., (1994) 2 SCC 718, the Apex Court held that the High Court and the Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments.

In Teri  Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T. Chandigarh, (2004) 2 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision."

Similar view has been reiterated in Ramakrishna Kamat Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 3 SCC 374.

In State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704, the Hon'ble Apex Court also held that compassionate employment is offered on the premises that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee. In strict legal sense such claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered reasonable and permissible only on the ground of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and died while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

In the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, 2004 AIR SCW 4602, the Supreme Court considered whether the retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment. This contention was repelled after placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The General Manager (D & PB) & Ors. Vs. Kunti Tewari & Anr. decided on 05.01.2004. The Supreme Court arrived at such a conclusion on the basis of the same Scheme.

In Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. Vs. K.R. Vishwanath, 2005 AIR SCW 4102, the Apex Court insisted upon that the appointment on compassionate ground is provided only to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crisis. However, such appointments can be made in accordance with the Rules taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

In Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Agra & Ors, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1128, it has been held that no appointment on compassionate ground can be made if any member of the family stand gainfully employed and the plea that such member is not supporting the claimant cannot nullify the restriction imposed by law.

In Surya Kant Kadam Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, AIR 2001 SC 3145, it has been held:-

"If the rules or executive orders or instructions of the "Corporation" prohibits some category of person for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that any other member of the family is already in service, such executive instruction is valid and no direction by this Court could be issued in derogation to such instruction or circular or scheme in the light of the observations made in Steel Authority of India (supra). This Court has to desist   to invoke its power in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to make a judicial review of specific or executive instruction if the Life Insurance Corporation has modified the Clause 21 of " Instructions, 1979" by promulgating a Circular dated 29/12/2001 in the light of which if in the peculiar facts and circumstances a dependant of Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava was adjusted and was given deployment by the respondent "Corporation", such action of the respondent Corporation could not be said to be arbitrary or in derogation to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. In these circumstances, I find force in the contentions and submissions of the respondent-Corporation, therefore, no relief as prayed for can be given to the petitioner."

In A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 112, while considering the case of compassionate appointment it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even the Supreme Court should not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 issuing a direction to give compassionate appointment in contravention of the provisions of the Scheme/Rules etc. As the provisions have to be complied with mandatorily and any appointment given or ordered to be given in violation of the scheme would be illegal.

Thus, it is evident that such employment cannot be claimed as a vested right. The  concept  of  vested right  has  been explained  by the Apex Court in Mosammat Bibi Sayeeda  & Ors. Vs. State of  Bihar & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1936, wherein it has been described as under:-    

"The word 'vested' is defined in Black's  Law  Dictionary  (6th  Edition)  at  page  1563,  as  'vested', Fixed; accrued; settled; absolute;   complete. Having  the  character or given in the rights  of absolute ownership; not contingent;  not subject to  be defeated by a condition  precedent.' ,Rights are 'vested' when right to enjoyment,    present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as  present interest; mere  expectancy of  future benefits,  or  contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does  not constitute vested rights. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary  (International Edition) at page 1397,  ''vested' is defined as (Law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest."                        

Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned.  Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law.

We do not find any force in the submissions made by Sri Giri that if the relief sought is not granted to the petitioner she would suffer severe hardship and it would amount to denial of justice.

Justice is the virtue, by which the Society/Court/Tribunal gives to a man what is his due, opposed to injury or wrong.  (Wharton's Law Lexicon, 1976 Reprint Edn., p. 552). Justice is an act of rendering what is right and equitable towards one who has suffered a wrong. Therefore, while tempering the justice with mercy, the Court has to be very conscious that it has to do justice in exact conformity to some obligatory law for the reason that human actions are found to be just or unjust as they are in conformity with or in opposition to the law.  In Delhi Administration  Vs. Gurdip Singh  Uban  & Ors., (2000)  7  SCC 296, the Hon'ble Apex  Court observed as under:-                              

"The words 'justice' and 'injustice', in our view,. are sometimes loosely used and have different meanings to different persons,  particularly to those  arrayed on  opposite sides.....  Justice  Cardozo said, 'The  Web is tangled and  obscure, shot  through with a multitude of  shades and colours, the skeins irregular and broken. Many hues that seems to be simple, are found, any when analysed, to be complex and uncertain blend. Justice itself, which we are wont to appeal to as a test as well as an ideal, may mean different things to different minds and at different times.  Attempts to objectify its standards or even to describe them, have never wholly succeeded." (Selected Writings of Cardozo, pp 223-24; Fallon Publications, 1947)."    

Thus, in view of the above, we cannot be persuaded to interpret the provisions of the scheme liberally, in the garb of doing justice, as  compassionate employment itself is an exception to the service jurisprudence, otherwise, it could have been in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and exception always requires to be strictly interpreted even if there is  hardship to any individual. Exception is provided with the object of taking it out of the scope of the basic law and what is included in it and what the  legislature desires to be excluded. (Vide Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s.Wood Papers Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1991 SC 2049; Satnam Singh & Anr. Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors. , AIR 1997 SC 983; and Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.., AIR 2000 SC 66).

Even otherwise, there is nothing in the petition to show as to what had been the  financial condition of the petitioner's family i.e. the family of the petitioner's husband by which the petitioner being the wife is a member and we also fail to understand as to how she could claim to be member of two families simultaneously for the purpose of the Social Welfare Legislation like the Rules, 1974.

We do not find any force in the submissions made by Shri A.P.N. Giri. The petition is totally misconceived and the Court condemns and deprecates the practice of filing petition without proper pleadings and furnishing full particulars. Filing this kind of petition is not in the interest either  the litigant or  the Court or of the Society as a whole and on the other hand amounts to obstructing the cause of justice.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

7.12.2005

AKSI


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.