Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

No Willful Disobedience of the Order — Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition on Compassionate Appointment Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana delivered a verdict on September 11, dismissing a contempt petition filed by Sarabjit Kaur, the widow of the original writ petitioner Amandeep Singh. The Court observed that there was “no willful disobedience of the order dated 14.08.2019” and granted the petitioner liberty to avail alternative remedies under the law.

Amandeep Singh initially filed the writ petition seeking compassionate benefits following the death of his father, Bhupinder Singh, a government servant. The Court had earlier set aside an order that denied him these benefits, directing the respondents to “reconsider the application of the petitioner in accordance with prevalent applicable Policy.”

After Amandeep Singh’s passing, his widow, Sarabjit Kaur, took up the case. An application for clarification on the original order was also disposed of, indicating that the case should be considered “as per the policy, prevalent as on the date of death of the father of the petitioner.”

The main point of contention was whether Sarabjit Kaur, being the daughter-in-law of the deceased government servant, is eligible for the compassionate benefits under the existing policy. While counsel for the respondent argued that she was not a dependent person under the policy, the petitioner’s counsel referred to a new State Government scheme that could potentially include her.

 In its final observation, the Court stated, “It is a disputed fact whether the petitioner, being the daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, is covered in the policy or not, which cannot be decided in the present contempt petition.” Therefore, the contempt petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner the liberty to explore alternative legal remedies.

The judgement underlines the complexities involved in compassionate appointments and leaves room for future legal deliberations on the subject.

Date of decision: 11.09.2023

Sarbjeet Kaur  vs Baldev Singh Saran and Others       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Sarbjeet_Kaur_vs_Baldev_Singh_Saran_And_Others_on_11_September_2023_PH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News