Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The respondent had filed original application before Central Administrative Tribunal challenging selection of Catering Supervisor based only on marks obtained in the interview and excluding marks of written test.
Looking at the punishments awarded to the co-delinquents for same incidents/transactions and acts of connivance and testing the impugned action on the anvil of Article 14 as well as keeping in mind the long and unblemished spell of service of the respondent, save and except, the Single Judge was inclined to convert the punishment from ‘dismissal’ to one of ‘compulsory retirement’.
An update on new addition of case laws to SCC’s High Court Cases (‘HCC’) volumes.
The Court further stated that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a government employee would be like a punitive action because the same has drastic civil and evil consequences.
The Court referred to Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Kamgar Union, (2022) 10 SCC 172, and State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, wherein the Supreme Court held that the object of compassionate employment is to tide over a sudden crisis, and the application for grant of appointment on compassionate basis should not be considered after a prolonged delay; the sense of urgency should not be lost.
The Court emphasised that the respondents did not object to the petitioner’s continuation of service for twenty-three years. Therefore, depriving the petitioner of pensionary benefits on the ground that a formal order of de-reservation was not passed, even though the ingredients were satisfied, would be unjust.
The Court reiterated the findings of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4, that the benefits drawn by a candidate not belonging to a scheduled tribe, must be considered to having been drawn on the basis of a false caste certificate; such benefits are required to be withdrawn.
The Court noted that the petitioner did not misrepresent or commit fraud to derive benefit of reimbursement of the Allowance scheme; therefore, the issuance of the impugned memorandum was found to be arbitrary.
The Court referred to Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148 wherein it was held that, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances, however it cannot be drawn from insinuation and vague suggestions.
“A child born out of surrogacy to be treated in the similar manner as a child born out of the natural process and provide the commissioning mother with all the benefits provided thereto.”
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Issue of limitation — Adjudication of, as an admissibility issue at the stage
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 5: Principles summarised re scope of interference by Court under S. 34. Supervisory,
The High Court stated that that the person who asserts that there is equality in work has to prove the same first.
Constitution of India — Sch. X and Art. 145(3) — Power of Speaker/Deputy Speaker to initiate disqualification proceedings, when proceedings for removal
Reservation, Concession, Exemption, Relaxation and Affirmative Action — Caste/Tribe Certificate: Matters to be considered while determining whether cancellation of caste certification is
Hailing from a family of Judges, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh served as a Judge and Acting Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court prior to being appointed as Chief Justice of Tripura High Court.
“In a society like ours, job more often than not, happens to be predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee.”
Calcutta High Court found no violation of natural justice and emphasised that it cannot re-appreciate evidence in the exercise of judicial review.
Constitution of India — Arts. 14, 15 and 16 — Reservation — Sub-classification: T.N. Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions including
Supreme Court held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was not right in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the Trial Court, granting the respondent compassionate appointment in Bank of Baroda.