Punjab And Haryana High Court Weekly Round Up : April 18 To April 24,2022

Sunita Devi v. State Of Haryana and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 78

Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 79

Swaran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 80

Rinky Rani v. Daljit Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 81

Inam v. State Of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 82

Yoginder Kumar Sud versus Thakur Rajiv Singh and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 83

Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited Versus State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 84

Poonam Kalsi v. State Of Punjab And Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 85

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

1.Ordinarily, Court Does Not Interfere In Compassionate Appointment Matters Of Contractual Employee In Absence Of Any Policy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sunita Devi v. State Of Haryana and Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 78

Punjab and Haryana High Court this court would not have interfered in such a matter of contractual employee in the absence of any policy but in the mitigating circumstances of this case, it is expected from the State to have a compassionate outlook and try to accommodate the petitioner on any suitable post in any class subject to the requirement of services.

Justice Arun Monga stated that a decision needs to be taken as expeditiously as possible since the petitioner and her four minor children continue to live in penury.

2. Person Not Being A Complainant Cannot Ask For Addition Of Offences In FIR: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 79

Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a no-complainant cannot seek directions of addition of particular offences in a FIR lodged by another person.

The bench comprising Justice H.S. Madaan stated that petitioner can avail the remedy by approaching the Illaqa Magistrate seeking registration of FIR by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or by filing a private complaint. Upon which the Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

3.Dependant Parents Entitled To Family Pension After Wife & Children Of Deceased Lose Eligibility: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Swaran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 80

Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that entitlement for the grant of family pension to the dependent parents needs to be seen after the widow or the children loose their eligibility for the grant of the said benefit.

The bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi held that the widow initially is entitled to the family pension, after she becomes ineligible the children will be entitled and when children become ineligible, the dependant parents will be granted the same subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria.

Court further added that the dependent parent's claim for a family pension cannot be ignored only because the deceased is survived by his widow or children.

4. "Court Shouldn't Be Swayed By Emotions Tilting Towards Fairer Sex": PH High Court Rejects Wife's Plea To Transfer Matrimonial Case

Justice Fateh Deep Singh observed that the wife cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of her own wrongs and rather the present petition is nothing but a sweet revenge by the wife to force the husband not to seek his rights under the law and more so the invocation of a jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC is not to be rightly inferred unless and until there are bonafide compelling reasons for the Court to come to the aid of the applicant and dismissed the plea.

5. Anticipatory Bail Plea On Behalf Of Proclaimed Offender Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Inam v. State Of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 82

Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the warrant and is declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

6.Once Suit For Permanent Injunction Stood Decreed, Executing Court Cannot Render Said Decree Nugatory: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Yoginder Kumar Sud versus Thakur Rajiv Singh and Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 83

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once a suit for the permanent injunction was decreed the same cannot be declared nugatory by the Executing Court stating that the petitioner ought to file a suit for partition.

Justice Alka Sarin added that the Executing Court cannot render a decree nugatory once the suit for permanent injunction stood decreed which it did so in the present case and by doing so it has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it.

7. S.17(2) Working Journalists Act | Notice To Employer Not Mandatory Before Making Reference To Adjudicatory Mechanism: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited Versus State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 84

Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that whereas adjudicatory mechanism under the Working Journalists Act is intended to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employer qua the question of claim raised by the employee, the employer cannot claim any hearing before making of the reference by the appropriate government under Section 17(2) of the Act.

The bench comprising Justice Rajbir Sehrawat held that the action of the appropriate government in referring the matter to the Labour Court is in tune with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act.

8.Mother Has Preferential Right To Custody Of Minor Below 5 Yrs But Utmost Consideration Is Child's Welfare: P&H HC Rejects Habeas Corpus Against Father

Case Title: Poonam Kalsi v. State Of Punjab And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 85

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Custody of the father as a natural guardian cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful and therefore, it would not be appropriate to issue a writ of habeas corpus in favour of the petitioner.

Justice Sant Parkash further held that while making orders for the appointment of guardians of minors, the most important consideration should be given to the welfare of the minor. Court further added that the legal rights of the mother must be understood subject to provisions of Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Other case updates

Plea In Punjab & Haryana HC Seeks Postponement Of Haryana JS (Mains) Exam-2021 On Ground Of Clash With MP Civil Judge (Pre) Exam Date

A Writ petition has been moved before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking postponement of Mains Examination of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)- 2021 in view of its clash with the date announced for conducting the Preliminary Exam of Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam-2021.

In all, 63 petitioners who have qualified Preliminary exam of HCS (Judicial Branch) Pre Exam 2021 have moved the High Court seeking postponement and rescheduling of the Mains Examination in a manner so as to ensure that the same does not coincide/clash with the MP CJ's Preliminary Exam-2021 being conducted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.