Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by media, one of the deputy governors of RBI named Viral Acharya has resigned from his position 6 months before completing his term.

It has been stated that “His academic views of the financial system was in contrast with the rest of the system. ”

Quoted from Economic Times “In the latest monetary policy meeting, Governor Das and Dr Acharya differed strongly on the state of the fiscal deficit and how to account for that. 
While Governor Das said that it was unfair to club the borrowings of state-run enterprises into the state of fiscal deficit, Acharya said that the borrowing requirement of PSUs matters to the overall deficit. “


[Source: Economic Times]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Sindhu Sharma, J. dismissed the petition for revocation of the resignation of the petitioner’s post which was accepted by the respondent officer 7 years back. 

The petitioner, a follower, appointed on compassionate grounds in J&K Armed Police submitted an application to the respondents stating therein that he is not in a position to continue his services due to some domestic problems and tendered resignation from services which was accepted by the respondent and was struck of the record.

H. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that he was not in good mental health when the resignation was submitted and prayed for termination/revocation of the resignation and sought permission to perform his duties as a follower.

The respondent’s counsel, Sanchit Verma, made his submission that the petitioner had resigned from services, seven years back, on his own accord which was accepted by him and consequently his name was struck off from the rolls. 

The Court held that an employee can revoke/terminate the permission of resignation from the services during the continuation of service and not when the name was struck off from the list of employees.  The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jai Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 584  in which it was held that It may be conceded that it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained; but he can be allowed to do so long as he continue in service and not after it has terminated.”  

Thus the present appeal was dismissed by the tribunal on the ground of being devoid of the merit. [Anjum Hussain v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 401, Order dated  26-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Gita Mittal, CJ and Sanjeev Kumar, J. dismissed the appeal filed against the order wherein a direction to the appellants was given to consider the case of the respondent which was in relation to his unreleased salary.

The facts of the case are that the respondent (writ petitioner) was working as a daily rated worker with the appellants in the position of a Helper. The respondent was absent from duty from October 1986 and that despite issuance of a notice, he did not report for duties. The appellants claimed that the respondent submitted his resignation in 1987 which was sent to the higher authorities for instructions. However, this resignation did not culminate in any final order of acceptance. Even otherwise, the appellants were unable to support this assertion on their part for the reason that they were unable to produce any record relating to this resignation. The respondent thus disputed the fact of having given any resignation. The respondent was compelled to file a writ petition for the reason that his salary was not released.

The Court held that the appellants had not passed any formal order of termination of the services of the respondent thus the directions made in the writ petition by the impugned order were fully justified and could not be faulted on any legally tenable ground. It was also directed that for the period the respondent remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, he would not be paid salary. The appeal was thus dismissed. [Power Development Deptt. v. Javaid Ahmad Mir, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 1047, Order dated 14-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

“No authority can stop inter-caste or intersect marriage.”

Meghalaya High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.R. Sen, J. allowed a petition while expressing anguish and displeasure over the matter concerning the inter-caste or inter-sect marriage.

In the present case, the petitioner was working as an assistant teacher and was discharging his duties in full satisfaction. On the completion of 3 years and 5 months of service at the same position, the petitioner was verbally asked by respondent 7 to resign from his post and the reason behind the said action was that “the petitioner had married a lady from a different denomination which belonged to the Roman Catholic Church”.

For the above-said facts, petitioner had filed a written complaint to respondent 3 stating the discrimination actions. On acting in regard to the complaint filed, in the month of July 2018 petitioner was asked to come to the office of respondent 3 in which petitioner was given an assurance that the matter would be taken up, but till date, no positive response has been received. Petitioner was forced to resign from his post without any semblance of any complaint which was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner Mr P Nongbri stated that respondent’s 7 and 8 refused to accept the notice of the Court. Further learned GA  Mr K. Baruaa ppearing on behalf of respondent 1-6 stated that government also issued a show cause notice but respondent’s 7 and 8 chose to remain silent on the same.

Thus, the High Court, while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC 405 in which it was stated that:

“Caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. Inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system.”

The bench in the stated decision observed that:

“We sometimes hear of ‘honour’ killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honorable in such killings; in fact, they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.”

Therefore, in the present case, the bench expressed shock that in the 21st century such a narrow outlook is still being carried out. Respondent’s 7 and 8 were directed to reinstate the petitioner immediately without any further delay and to clear all his dues, salary and other benefits along with a compensation of Rs 50,000 to be paid to the petitioner. [Dasuklang Kharjana v. State of Meghalaya, 2018 SCC OnLine Megh 287, decided on 20-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court:  A writ petition by former employees of the respondent bank who asserted that differentiating between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ was bad in law and unjustified, was dismissed by a Division Bench comprising of M.S. Karnik and A.A. Sayed, JJ. The petitioners’ contention was that since they had been employees of the bank for more than 20 years and had resigned because they had no provision pertaining to voluntary retirement upon completion of 20 years of service, they were entitled to be covered under the Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.

The Regulations of 1995 provided for entitlement to avail pension after 20 years of service on grounds of voluntary retirement for persons retiring between 1986 and 1993. The petitioners resigned between the aforementioned period and sought that the court declare ‘retirement’ to include ‘resignation’.

The Court rejected their contentions, accepted the cases put forward by the respondent, relied on the definition of ‘retirement’ under the Regulations and held that under service jurisprudence, the concept of resignation is not covered under retirement. Since the petitioners’ employment terms were governed by the Officers Service Regulation, 1979, the Court came to the conclusion that they were not entitled to receive pension under the new scheme. Therefore, the petitioners had voluntarily relinquished their services. [Hutoxi Noshir Shroff v. Bank of India,  2017 SCC OnLine Bom 6600, decided on 21.07.2017]