Kamaljit Kaur vs The State Of Punjab
- Neutral2017 INSC 603
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India permits it, in appropriate cases involving disputes between parties and having regard to the factual matrix, to invoke that jurisdiction to strike equity and do complete justice by directing settlement of the dispute through monetary compensation in lieu of considering the merits, particularly where one party has already been working for a considerable period and the court considers that the merits need not be gone into.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4484 OF 2009
KAMALJIT KAUR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4485 OF 2009
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4484 OF 2009
1. The learned counsel appearing on both sides
submit that the matter pertains to appointment of an
Anganwadi worker and essentially it is a dispute
between the daughter and the daughter-in-law.
2. The daughter-in-law, after the interim orders
passed by this Court, has rejoined and has been
working, in any case, for the last 10 years. She has
past service also.
3. Having regard to the factual matrix as above, we
do not think that the merits of the matter need to be
considered and it is a case where this Court should Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.30 16:57:55 IST invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Reason:
Constitution of India for striking equity and doing
complete justice.
2
4. Therefore, invoking our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we dispose
of this appeal with a direction to the appellant to
pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to
Respondent No. 4. The amount shall be paid by way of
a Demand Draft drawn in the name of Respondent No.4
within a period of three months from today. We make
it clear that this is in full and final settlement of
all the claims of Respondent No. 4. Needless also to
say that the appellant shall be treated to be in
service for all purposes.
5. The impugned Judgment of the High Court is
modified to the above extent.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4485 OF 2009
1. In view of the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal
No. 4484 of 2009 above, no separate orders need be
passed in this case.
2. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
July 11, 2017.
3
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 4484/2009
KAMALJIT KAUR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 4485/2009
Date : 11-07-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Appellant(s) Tushar Bakshi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tarun Gupta, Adv.
Ms. S. Janani, AOR
Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed
non-reportable Judgment
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free