Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 73 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTScope of the Expression “Son” - Whether the expression “son” as contained in the category of dependants in Clause 9.3.3 of Chapter X of NCWA [e National Coal Wage Agreement] would include an illegitimate son born out of second marriage of a deceased employee - Held that:- The general expression “son” was occurring in conjunction to the qualified expression “legally adopted son” - the former would take a restricted meaning of legitimacy and not a wider meaning - the expression “son” in the category of “dependants” in the aforesaid scheme would not include illegitimate son born out of the second wedlock of a deceased employee. Section 16 (1) of the aforesaid Act creates a legal fiction whereby a child born out of void marriage shall be held to be legitimate. Section 16 (3) of the said act restricts such legal presumption to the rights of such a child only to the property of his parents and none else - Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 presumes a child born out of a void marriage as legitimate only for the purpose of entitling him to claim rights in or to the property of his parents but not to any other thing - Public post was not a heritable property - In fact it was an exception to the rule of regular appointment by open competition - Such exception to the rule of regular appointment was therefore a privilege extended by the employer in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment itself - It was not a property of the deceased nor was it a heritable right. Ramesh Chand Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division – II, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Allahabad and others [2003 (10) TMI 609 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] had rightly interpreted the restricted import of the legal presumption in Section 16 of the Act and rejected its applicability to matters relating to compassionate appointment - Right to compassionate appointment was an exception to the general rule of recruitment by public competition - Such privilege therefore was to be strictly construed according to the terms and conditions of the scheme and the same cannot be rewritten by the Courts. Wherever the legislature wanted to extend any right or privilege to illegitimate children, it expressly provided for the same - The scheme for compassionate appointment had not expressly provided such privilege to illegitimate children born out of a void marriage - When the employer in its wisdom had not extended such privilege to an illegitimate son born out of a void marriage, such privilege cannot be imported by resorting to other statutory instruments which have no manner of application to the matter of compassionate appointment of a deceased employee. A bare reading of clause 9.3.3 which defines dependants would show that the word “son” was accompanied by the words “legally adopted son” - It was settled law that the meaning of a word was to be judged by the company it keeps - When two or more words which were susceptible of analogous meaning were coupled together, they were understood to be used in their cognate sense - They take as it were their colour from each other that was the more general was restricted to a sense analogous to a less general - Appeal Allowed.
|