Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Once, a vacancy under the reserved category does not exist, the candidate cannot be considered against the reserved category vacancy, which, in fact, does not exist.”
In the present case, the petitioner, who was working as Trained Graduate Teacher, was not promoted to the post of Head Master (Junior Wing) formally but had taken over the said post as the vacancy arose due to superannuation.
As per Appendix 3 appended to CCS CCA Rules, the Member Telecommunications Commission is a competent authority to impose major penalties, and the General Manager, Telecommunications, is competent to impose minor penalties.
“This case presents a sad and shocking state of affairs, a disturbing pattern wherein an officer was being repeatedly victimized, not only after his superannuation but also after his death.”
“Tendency to stop the recruitment process of non-SCS category candidates points out towards the greed of the State Civil Service category candidates to grab all the posts meant for State Civil Service and non-SCS category candidates.”
‘The reasoning given for a fresh inquiry was a mere lip service to the requirement of Rule 9(1) and was delightfully left in the realm of conjecture.’
“Initially a writ petition was filed before the High Court in the year 2000 which was transferred to the Tribunal in 2017 and thereafter, it came to be dismissed in 2024, we request the Tribunal to grant priority to hearing of this petition, and expect that the Tribunal shall hear and decide the same within a period of five months”
In nutshell, when the petitioner could not find his place in selection list, he knocked the doors of the Court alleging mala fide at the hands of respondents, which cannot be permitted.
If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach”.
“The impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court adequately protects the interests of the Federation as all the appointments have been made subject to the outcome of the pending Writ Petition”
The applicants are working in the railway factory i.e. workshop on the post of Operators which resides in factory premises and respondents has not produced any data regarding posts in railway workshop.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider releasing petitioner’s terminal benefits by taking into account the higher salary which he was drawing during the 14 years when he was working as a Research Officer.
The case was filed, compelled by the absence of communication regarding the outcome of the selection process for the post of Primary Teacher (Music) despite an active participation, whereas other candidates received offers of appointment while keeping her in the dark about the status.
Clause-7 of the letter dated 12-09-2013 provides that those serving on deputation may not be normally returned to their parent establishment, is not a rule to disable the promotions or to disable repatriation
“The expression “discharge” is of wide import, and it would include “discharge on conclusion of the contractual period”.”
“While granting interim relief for continuation in service, the Court or Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character was produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior”.
“The Tribunal apparently failed to appreciate that the calculations made by the respondents overlooked proviso (b) to Rule 6 as well as Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and commutation value expressed as number of years of purchase, prejudicial to the petitioner cannot be applied.”
The benefit of Domestic Help Allowance is a retirement benefit and hence it will be included in the expression ‘pension’ as occurring in Section 2(gg) of High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act 1954.
The Court said that petitioner was always aware that her job was transferable and had no cogent grounds to resist the order of transfer.
The Court stated that the “claim of the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds.”