{"id":319694,"date":"2024-04-08T13:00:06","date_gmt":"2024-04-08T07:30:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=319694"},"modified":"2024-04-12T12:14:26","modified_gmt":"2024-04-12T06:44:26","slug":"protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> In a writ petition filed against the order passed by Director\/Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department (‘SW&WED’) in terminating the service of the petitioner and the order passed by the Principal Secretary, (‘SW&WED’) in rejecting her reinstatement in service and to quash the same and consequently direct the Department to reinstate the petitioner as Protection Officer in any of the district of Tamil Nadu with all consequential benefits including pay arrears of salary, backwages, allowances with all other emoluments from the date of termination to the date of her reinstatement and seniority, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J. while upholding the impugned orders, said that merely permitting the petitioner to continue her service after completion of one year, doesn’t amount to appointment made as per Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006. As per contract, at any time without any notice, she will be terminated from her service.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

Petitioner was appointed as Protection Officer for the period of one year on consolidated salary, based on the notification issued in Government Order. She is qualified with Master degree, M. Phil, Diploma in Nursing and Diploma in counselling conducted by the Netherlands Stitching Gestalt Fundations-2000. Her appointment was made under the provisions of Section 8<\/a> of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a> (‘PWDV Act’). She was initially appointed at Pudukottai and subsequently, she got transferred to Chennai. Though she was appointed for one year but later, her services were renewed till 22-11-2022.<\/p>\n

Some complaints were received against the petitioner and in pursuant to the said complaints, she was directed to submit an explanation. On receipt of the detailed explanation submitted by her, all the complaints were closed. Even then, without any notice and without conducting any enquiry, she was terminated from service by the impugned order dated 31-10-2022, by Director\/Commissioner, SW&WED.<\/p>\n

Analysis:<\/p>\n

After perusing the initial appointment order dated 26-08-2009, the Court noted that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Protection Officer and if any complaints and for any other reasons without any prior notice, she will be terminated from her service. While the petitioner was serving as Protection Officer, there were so many complaints received against her, she was issued with show cause notice for calling her to submit explanation. Since her explanation was not satisfactory, she was terminated from service.<\/p>\n

The Court said that the petitioner was appointed as Protection Officer for the period of one year on temporary basis that too on consolidated salary. The post of Protection Officers has been created on consolidated pay and delegated the powers to the Director\/Commissioner, SW&WED to fill up the posts of Protection Officers. These posts are not governed by any service rules of the Government and governed as per the terms of contractual agreement entered by the incumbents and the contract could be terminated before the completion of one year on the ground of unsatisfactory service on the candidate selected or on the administrative grounds or when it is felt that continued employment is found unnecessary.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the petitioner was not appointed under Rule 3(3) of the PWDV Rules 2006, and was appointed for the period of one year on contract basis under the consolidated salary by an order dated 26.08.2009. Thereafter she was permitted to continue her service after completion of one year. Merely permitting the petitioner to continue her service after completion of one year, doesn’t amount to ‘her appointment was made as per Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006’. As per contract, at any time without any notice, she will be terminated from her service.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Director\/Commissioner, SW&WED in terminating the service of the petitioner and the order passed by the Principal Secretary..<\/p>\n

[Pandiammal v. Director\\Commissioner Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 588<\/a>, Order dated 20-03-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For Petitioner<\/span> : Senior Counsel P.V.S.Giridhar<\/p>\n

For Respondents<\/span> : Government Advocate R.L.Karthika<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Madras High Court said that the petitioner was not appointed under Rule 3(3) of the PWDV Rules 2006. She was appointed only on temporary basis, that too on consolidated salary.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":314802,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[67366],"class_list":["post-319694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-protection-officer"],"yoast_head":"\nExtension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras HC held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis and allowed to continue after completing one year cannot be termed to be appointed under R. 3(3) of PWDV Rules\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras HC held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis and allowed to continue after completing one year cannot be termed to be appointed under R. 3(3) of PWDV Rules\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-04-08T07:30:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-04-12T06:44:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-04-08T07:30:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-04-12T06:44:26+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Madras HC held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis and allowed to continue after completing one year cannot be termed to be appointed under R. 3(3) of PWDV Rules\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Madras High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras HC | SCC Times","description":"Madras HC held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis and allowed to continue after completing one year cannot be termed to be appointed under R. 3(3) of PWDV Rules","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras High Court","og_description":"Madras HC held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis and allowed to continue after completing one year cannot be termed to be appointed under R. 3(3) of PWDV Rules","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-04-08T07:30:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-04-12T06:44:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/","name":"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-04-08T07:30:06+00:00","dateModified":"2024-04-12T06:44:26+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Madras HC held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis and allowed to continue after completing one year cannot be termed to be appointed under R. 3(3) of PWDV Rules","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Madras High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/08\/protection-officer-appointed-contract-basis-allowed-continue-completing-year-cannot-termed-appointed-under-r-33-pwdv-rules-madras-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Extension of Protection Officer\u2019s contract cannot be termed to be an appointment under PWDV Rules: Madras High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":207524,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/02\/suspension-revoked-reinstatement-ordered-pending-prolonged-inquiry-proceedings-for-9-years\/","url_meta":{"origin":319694,"position":0},"title":"Suspension revoked; reinstatement ordered pending prolonged inquiry proceedings for 9 years","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 2, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: A\u00a0 Bench of Dr S. Vimala, J. addressed a writ petition in which it was stated that petitioner was charged with corruption and put on suspension for which no order has yet been passed in a period of 9 years. The petitioner in the present case was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":279665,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/15\/madras-high-court-dismisses-contempt-proceedings-against-presiding-officer-of-family-court-imposes-rs-50000-costs-on-the-petitioner-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":319694,"position":1},"title":"Madras High Court dismisses contempt proceedings against presiding officer of family Court; Imposes Rs. 50,000 costs on the petitioner","author":"Editor","date":"December 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court held that the contempt petition is not maintainable and barred by limitation. Thus, dismissed contempt proceedings against the presiding officer of Family Court as he was not the presiding officer when the order was passed.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Madras-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":296140,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/06\/madras-high-court-directs-tnstc-reinstate-bus-conductor-terminated-non-issuance-ticket\/","url_meta":{"origin":319694,"position":2},"title":"Madras High Court directs State Transport Corporation to reinstate bus conductor terminated due to non-issuance of ticket","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court stated that the punishment given is grossly disproportionate to the offence and it has shaken the conscience of the Court.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311980,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/compassionate-appointment-madras-high-court-directs-district-education-officer-to-provide-job-son-of-deceased-head-mistress\/","url_meta":{"origin":319694,"position":3},"title":"[Compassionate appointment] Madras High Court directs District Education Officer to provide job to son of deceased Head Mistress","author":"Apoorva","date":"January 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"After perusing the Government order of the Labour and Employment Department, Madras High Court noted that the family pension of the deceased employee need not be considered while assessing the family's income.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":373145,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/19\/reinstatement-does-not-preclude-conducting-enquiry-over-past-misconduct-raj-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":319694,"position":4},"title":"Mere reinstatement does not preclude conducting departmental enquiry over past misconduct: Rajasthan High Court dismisses Health Officer’s plea challenging penalty order","author":"Shriya Singh","date":"January 19, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe nature of the misconduct proved against the petitioner, viewed in the context of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post held, cannot be said to be trivial or inconsequential.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Reinstatement does not preclude conducting enquiry","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Reinstatement-does-not-preclude-conducting-enquiry.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Reinstatement-does-not-preclude-conducting-enquiry.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Reinstatement-does-not-preclude-conducting-enquiry.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Reinstatement-does-not-preclude-conducting-enquiry.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298492,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/04\/old-pension-scheme-or-contributory-pension-scheme-applicable-government-servants-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":319694,"position":5},"title":"Old Pension scheme or contributory Pension Scheme, which will be applicable to Government servants appointed after 01-04-2003? Madras HC answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"August 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Because of the retrospective operation of the new pension scheme, no employer or employee would have forethought that appointments made after 01-04-2003 would not be eligible for the old pension scheme.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/319694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=319694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/319694\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314802"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=319694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=319694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=319694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}