Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of V. Chitambaresh and A.M. Babu, JJ. dismissed an appeal challenging the learned Single Judge’s order dismissing a petition filed for regularisation of service.

Appellant herein had filed a claim for regularisation in service but the same was turned down in 2001. The writ petition challenging the same was filed only in 2014 and the same was dismissed holding the petitioners guilty of laches in invoking the writ jurisdiction. Being aggrieved, the instant writ appeal was filed.

Respondent 2 (Kerala Shipping and Inland Navigation Corporation Ltd.) submitted that a few casual labourers had been continued only on humanitarian grounds even though the work dwindled after Gosree Projects.

The Court at the outset noted that there was no irregularity in the impugned order. Further, a huge financial commitment would be imposed on respondent  2 if all casual labourers were regularised. Moreover, they also would not even have adequate work for such workers.

Further, the appellant was not advised for appointment as he had a low rank in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission which is entrusted with the task of recruitment.

It was opined that it is not an inflexible rule that services of all casual labourers should be regularised. The Court concluded that appellant was at liberty to move the Labour or Industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if there was an unfair labour practice as writ court is not the proper forum for ventilation of such grievance.

In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed.[K.S. Rajeevan v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 805, decided on 07-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Madhuresh Prasad, J. dismissed a civil writ petition filed by an employee who alleged that his services had not been regularized, but other ineligible persons had been regularized.

The instant petition was filed alleging that petitioner’s claim for regularization had been rejected by the respondent-authority (being Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department), on the ground that his work was found beyond the zone of consideration in view of limited available vacancies as per duly approved roster.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Prabhat Ranjan Singh, submitted that ignoring the claim of the petitioner, others, who were ineligible, had been accommodated.

The Court noted that the stand taken by respondents in the counter affidavit had been disputed by the petitioner by making vague assertions. It was opined that stand of the respondents, appeared to be correct as no one, below the petitioner, had been considered for regularization on the panel prepared. Thus, the petitioner could not have any grievance of his claim being ignored in the process of regularization.

In view of the above, the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits.[Ranjan Kumar Tanti v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 238, Order dated 25-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: A Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. allowed the quashing of the criminal case owing to the amicable compromise between the parties.

The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner has been alleged for demanding dowry from the opposite party for a motorcycle along with the fact that he assaulted the opposite party. It has also been alleged that he was in an illicit relationship with another woman. He has contended that there was an application filed for restitution of conjugal rights in view of the amicable settlement between the parties under which the petitioner would pay monthly maintenance to the opposite party and her son. Hence when a compromise on mutual terms has been arrived upon between the parties the criminal case shall not be followed upon.

Accordingly, having considered the facts of the case the Court was of the view that the court by using its inherent powers in order to reach the ends of justice simply when it was in the interest of both the parties shall allow for the above application.[Dhananjay Paswan v. State Of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 11, decided on 03-01-2019]