Appeal No 728 of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 29111978 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ No 2955 of 1977
Satish Chandra Ms Abha jain Gaurav Jain and Ghayyute Alam for the Appellants Ashok Kumar Srivastava for the Respot dent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GN RAY J
In this appeal by grant of special leave the appellants four in number
being sons of late Shri Wadood Ali Khan have challenged the legality validity and propri ety of redetermination of ceiling on lands of the said Wadood All Khan under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceil ing on Land Holdings Act 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act
The relevant facts of the case of the appellants in appeal are as follows  a The appellants are four sons and legal representatives of late Shri Wadood All Khan who had died on 2081974
It is contended 162 mat in addition to the appellants the said Wadood Ali Khan had left the other heirs and legal representatives namely three sons Maskhur Ashud Khan Mohdud Ali Khan and Mashkoor Ali Khan widow Smt
Firdaus Begum and daughters Shabana Begum Farzana Begum and Qaiser Jahan Begum
b That after the death of Wadood Ali Khan the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act served a notice under Section 10 of the Ceil ing Act proposing to declare lands to the extent of 178 15 19 bighas of irrigated land as surplus
Such notice under Section 10 was served on appellant No 1 although the notice was addressed to the deceased Wadood Ali Khan
c Appellant No 1 filed objections before the Prescribed Authority and also participated in the proceedings for determination of ceiling
Such proceeding was decided by the Prescribed Authority by its Judgment dated 29th April 1975 inter alia partly upholding objections of the appellant and declaring 87 1 19 19 bighas of irrigated lands as sur plus and treating the late Wadood Ali Khan as the tenure holder
d The appellants filed an appeal before the learned Civil Judge against the aforesaid decision of the Prescribed Authority and it is stated in the appeal petition that such appeal was pending
e The Ceiling Act was amended from time to time and in 1976 the Ceiling Act was further amended by the UP Act No 20 of 1976
Such Amending Act received the assent of the Presi dent on 30th April 1976 and was published in the UP Gazette extraordinary dated 3rd May 1976
Various changes in different Sections of the Ceiling Act were introduced by the said UP Act 1976
Section 31 3 of the said UP Act 20 of 1976 provides as follows 313 Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure holder has been made under the principal Act before the tenth day of October 1975 the Prescribed Authority as defined in the principal Act may at any time within a period of two years from the said date re determine the surplus land in accord ance with the principal act as amended by this Act whether or not any appeal was filed against such order and notwithstanding any appeal whether pending or decided against the original order of determination of surplus land
f The Prescribed Authority issued a notice tohe appellant No 1 on 8th July 1976 under Section 102 of the Act inter alia holding that 199 1 1 bighas of irrigated lands were proposed to be 163 declared surplus
The appellants filed objec tions to the proposed action of redetermina tion of ceiling by raising various objections
The Prescribed Authority thereafter disposed of the proceeding of redetermination of ceil ing by order dated 22nd December 1976 to the effect that 125 3 8 16 bighas of irrigated lands belonging to the said Wadood Ali Khan were surplus which were owned by Wadood Ali Khan as tenure holder on the appointed day
g The appellants preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge Saharanpur against such order dated 22nd December 1976 but such appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by Judgment and Order dated 16th May 1977
The appellants thereafter moved a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court being Civil Misc
Writ No 295577 which was disposed of by Order dated 29th November 1976
h The Writ Petition moved by the appellants were disposed of by the Allahabad High Court inter alia to the effect that previous deter mination of surplus land by the Prescribed Authority did not operate as res judicata and the appellate authority was justified in ignoring the Sale Deed dated October 271971
The High Court of Allahabad however held inter alia that the determination about some plots of lands had not been properly made
Accordingly the case was remanded to the appellate authority with the direction to the appellate authority to issue notice to the other brothers of the appellants Mr Satish Chandra learned senior counsel appearing for the appelants has strongly contended at the hearing of this appeal that such redetermination could only be made under the provisions of the Act as amended by UP Act No 20 of 1976 in view of the fact that the initiation of the proceed ings for redetermination was made after the said Act 20 of 1976 was enforced
He has also contended that the notice under Section 102 was deliberately issued to the appel lants by ignoring the other heirs of late Wadood Ali Khan although the concerned Prescribed Authority was aware that the said Wadood All Khan had died in 1974
He had also contended that the notice under Section 102 was purported to have been issued under the Amending Act of 1975 although the Amending Act of 1976 had come into force
Mr Satish Chandra has also contended that if the Prescribed Authority had prima facie come to the finding that the lands indicated in the notice under Section 102 were surplus lands it was his bounden duty to serve notices on all the heirs of Wadood All Khan and initiation of any proceeding without such notices to all the heirs was void
In support of this con tention he has relied upon a Full Bench 164 decision of the Allahabad High Court made in the case of Shantnu Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 1977 Allahabad Law Report p 564
Mr Satish Chandra has also contended that service of proper notice under Section 92 of the Ceiling Act on all the heirs of late Wadood Ali Khan was essential for assuming jurisdiction to redetermine the ceiling lands
Admittedly when such notice had not been issued to all the co sharers no proceeding for redetermina tion could have been lawfully initiated
Therefore the adjudication made by the Prescribed Authority and consequen tial adjudication by the appellate authority and the Allaha bad High Court must be held to be illegal void and without jurisdiction
He has contended that since two years has elapsed from the enforcement of the said Act 20 of 1976 no fresh redetermination is permissible in law at present
He has also contended that the purported initiation of the proceedings for redetermination of ceiling on lands and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the consequen tial orders passed by the appellate authority and by the High Court of Allahabad on the Writ Petitions mentioned hereinbefore must be quashed
We are however not inclined to accept the contention of Mr Satish Chandra that the proceeding for redetermina tion of ceiling land could not have been initiated by the Prescribed Authority until Notice under Section 92 was issued by him to all the heirs and he could only assume jurisdiction for initiation of a proceeding for redetermina tion of ceiling land after serving such notices to all the heirs of late Wadood Ali Khan
Section 31 3 of UP Act 20 of 1976 in our view authorises the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus land in relation to the tenure holder if initiated with in two years from October 10 1975
Admittedly the previous determination of ceiling was made before tenth of October 1975
Accordingly under sub Section 3 of Section 31 of the said UP Act 20 of 1976 the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to initiate the said proceeding and such jurisdiction did not depend on issuance of notice under Section 92 of the Ceiling Act to the tenure holder andor the successors in interest of the tenure holder
It however appears to us that although the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to initiate the pro ceeding for redetermination of surplus land and he had in fact initiated such proceeding within two years as referred to in sub section 3 of Section 31 of UP Act 20 of 1976 such determination could not have been made without afford ing to the heirs and legal representatives of Wadood Ali Khan an opportunity of being heard and showing cause before the Prescribed Authority
Admittedly Wadood Ali Khan had died in 1974 and he said fact was made known to the Pre scribed Authority when the initial determination of surplus lands was made
It is unfortunate that in spite of said fact the Prescribed Authority failed and neglected to ascertain the 165 names of all the legal heirs and representatives of Wadood Ali Khan and did not issue notices to such heirs for rede termination of surplus land
The High Court of Allahabad has directed to issue notice to other brothers of Wadood Ali Khan
The High Court has also remanded the case to the appellate authority so that other brothers get opportunity to appear and make submissions
The High Court has however not directed to issue notices to other heirs and legal representatives
Moreover in our view without giving other heirs and legal representatives an opportunity of being heard adjudication of the case on merits by the concerned authorities or by the High Court was not warranted
In the aforesaid facts we dispose of this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 22nd Decem ber 1976 and the impugned appellate orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 26th May 1976 and also the impugned decision of Allahabad High Court in Writ Peti tion No 295577
Mr Satish Chandra has contended that in view of subsequent changes of the Ceiling Act by the Amend ing Act 20 of 1976 there is no surplus land liable to be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh
It is not necessary to express any opinion on such contention of Mr Satish Chandra in view of the fact that the Prescribed Authority will have to redetermine the case of surplus land on the basis of existing provisions of the Ceiling Act applicable on the relevant date and the parties will get opportunity to make appropriate submissions on fact and law
The Prescribed Authority is directed to issue notices to all the heirs and legal representatives of late Wadood Ali Khan including the appellants herein and the other heirs and legal representa tives referred to in this judgment
The Prescribed Authority will decide the question of surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the Ceiling Act after issuing such notices to the heirs and legal representatives of late Wadood Ali Khan and giving such heirs and legal representatives a reasonable opportunity of being heard
In order to avoid any difficulty and any attempt to delay the disposal of redeter mination of surplus land by the appellants or the other heirs of Wadood Ali Khan it is directed that if there has been any change in the survivorship of legal representatives of late Wadood Ali Khan or devolution of interest of such heirs by lapse of time the appellants should inform the Prescribed Authority within a month from today the names and other particulars including the addresses of all such heirs and legal representatives of late Wadood Ali Khan so that appropriate notices may be issued by the Prescribed Authori ty
If the names and particulars of the legal representa tives are not furnished within a month from today by the appellants to the Prescribed Authority in terms of this direction liberty is given to the Prescribed Authority to serve the notices to the appellants and to the other heirs mentioned in this judgment by sending such notices under the care of the appellant No 1 Mansoor Ali Khan village Kailashpur Pargana Haraura 166 Tehsil and PO Saharanpur UP and it will be deemed that he is representing the interest of other heirs and legal representatives
The Prescribed Authority is directed to dispose of the proceeding for redetermination of surplus land as early as possible in view of the fact that the matter is pending determination for long
In the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs
RP Appeal disposed of


Summary:
The petitioner applied for the post of assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India
She was called for written test and also for interview and was successful in both the tests
She had to file a declaration form which she submitted to the corporation on May 25 1989
On the same day she was also examined by a lady doctor who was on the panel of the corporation and found medically fit for the job
Thereafter she underwent a short term training programme and given a letter of appointment dated September 25 1989
She was put on probation for a period of six months and was entitled to be confirmed in the service subject to satis factory work report
The petitioner took leave from December 9 1989 till March 8 1990
She applied for maternity leave on December 27 1989 followed by medical certificate dated January 6 1990
She delivered a full term baby on January 11 1990 in Dr Hira Lal s Nursing Home and was discharged from there on January 19 1990
On February 13 1990 the petitioner was discharged from the service during her period of probation
No ground was assigned and the order seemed to be a discharge simplicitor
The petitioner moved the High Court and the High Court refused to interfere with the termination since the peti tioner s work during the period of probation
was found to be not satisfactory
Thereafter the petitioner appealed to this Court
After preliminary hearing the court issued an interim mandamus directing 147 the respondent to put the petitioner back to service within 15 days from the date of receipt of the court order and also issued notice for final hearing
The corporation upon service of notice filed the coun ter seeking to justify the termination of petitioner s services on two grounds 1 that the petitioner had delib erately withheld to mention the fact of being in the family way at the time of filling up the declaration form before medical examination for fitness
The same was revealed only when she informed the corporation that she had given birth to a daughter
2 Her work during the probation was not satisfactory
So it was an order of discharge simplicitor
The Corporation further made reference to Instruction No16 as to the medical examination for recruitment of class 1II and IV staff wherein for the purpose of appointment if at the time of medical examination any lady applicant is preg nant her appointment shall be considered three months after the delivery
Granting the appeal the Court HELD While we arc moving forward to achieve the consti tutional guarantee of equal rights for women the Life Insurance Corporation of India seems to be not moving beyond the status quo
In the instant case there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner s work during the probation was not satisfactory
The reason for termination was only the declaration given by her at the stage of enter ing the service though the petitioner was medically exam ined by the lady doctor and found her medically fit to join the post
148 D E 151 C The real mischief though unintended is the nature of the declaration required from a lady candidate specially the particulars required to be furnished under columns iii to viii which are indeed embarrassing if not humilating
The modesty and self respect may perhaps preclude the disclosure of such personal problems
The corporation would do well to delete such columns in the declaration
If the purpose of the declaration is to deny the maternity leave and benefits to a lady candidate who is pregnant at the time of entering the service the Corporation could subject her to medical examination including the pregnancy test
151 D F The interim order already given is made absolute though the appellant is not entitled to the salary from the date of discharge till her reinstatement
151 G 148