http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: JETHI DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6)  61        1995 SCALE  (5)171

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       O R D E R      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. 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  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 the appellant and her  husband Om Dass were living as members of the Hindu joint family with Chandermani, her brother-in-law, and other members. On enquiry , it was also revealed that the marriage between Chandermani 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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

marriage took  place.  In  other  words,  they  were  living together as  man and woman and woman and a child was born to them.       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  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.        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.