Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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