Delhi High Court Not Allowing Representation By A Defence Assistant Is Violative Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court Case Name- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma has held that a person not...
Delhi High Court
Case Name- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma has held that a person not being allowed to be represented by a defence assistant & non-enclosure of past record of the person in chargesheet established that an enquiry proceedings is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice
Case Name- Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has held that definition of wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cannot be used to calculate bonus under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
Case: Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors.
Case No. W.P. (C). No. 4455/2017
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors. has held that the Court is to refrain from intervening in cases where there is an effective alternate remedy, unless there exist compelling reasons to do so.
Principle Of No Work No Pay Not Applicable If Order Of Termination Illegal: Delhi High Court
Case No.- W.P.(C) 4217/2022
Case Name- Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the case of Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr has held that an employee is entitled to backwages if order of termination was illegal and the principle of no work no pay is not applicable in such cases.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Puvvada Venkata Mohana Murali Krishna Murthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department
Case No: W.P. No.4861 of 2018 & Connected Matters
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a service matter of the employees from a branch of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, held that cooperative credit societies have complete autonomy in fixing the age of superannuation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao went on to note that increasing the age of superannuation from June 2017 was a policy decision well within the ambit of the Bank's management, as against Section 3(1) Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 governing PSUs and Institutions listed in the IX and X Schedules of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Bombay High Court
Case Name- Rajiv Bansal & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice N. J. Jamadar in the case of Rajiv Bansal & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors has held that withholding of salary or emoluments does not fall within the ambit of offence of cheating.
Case: The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors.
Case No. W.P. (C). No. 4129/2009
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a writ petition in the case of The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors. has held that regularization of services cannot be claimed merely based on long-term continuance of employment as this does not create any inherent right to regularization.
Case No.- WRIT PETITION No.8744 OF 2015
Case Name- Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr Vs The Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr
A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain in the case of Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr Vs The Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr has held that birth of a first child before joining the service is not relevant for considering of maternity leave after joining the service. The object of Maternity Benefit Regulation under AAI Regulations is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period.
Case No. : Writ Petition No. 4754 OF 2009
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
Case Name : Shri. Patil Samgonda Namgonda vs. State of Maharashtra
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Gauri Godse, J., while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Shri. Patil Samgonda Namgonda vs. State of Maharashtra, held that employee's conduct of filing petitions does not show the abandonment of claim for reinstatement in service.
Case No. : Writ Petition No.3701/2022
Case Name : Kalpana and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra
A full bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Anil S. Kilor, Anil L. Pansare and M.W.Chandwani, JJ., while answering the questions of law in the case of Kalpana and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, held that the prohibition on substituting name of one legal representative of deceased employee for compassionate appointment, by another legal representative is arbitrary & irrational.
Meghalaya High Court
Case title: Smti. Uttora G. Sangma vs. The State of Meghalaya & ors., WP(C) No. 82 of 2023
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Meg) 15
The Meghalaya High Court has considered the resignation tendered by a teacher as voluntary retirement enabling the teacher to benefit from pension and other entitlements, based on the circumstances of her resignation from the service.
Justice H. S. Thangkhiew was considering the claim of the petitioner that she cannot be deprived of her pensionary and other terminal benefits after having served for 33 years.
Calcutta High Court
Case No. : WPA 3618 of 2016
Case Name : Sri Kunal Chandra Sen vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Roy, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Sri Kunal Chandra Sen vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., held that the state cannot use public interest and accountability as an excuse to indefinitely delay the release of employees' pensions.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: The State of UP and 5 others v. Geeta Rani W/O Late Man Singh (Head Constable Civil Police) [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 380 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has held that no second chance can be granted to a person seeking compassionate appointment for qualifying the Physical Efficiency Test, having failed it in the first try.
Holding that compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of recruitment, the bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held that
“It is essentially to reach immediate succor to a bereaved family. In other words, the sudden passing away of a government servant creates a financial vacuum and it is to lend a helping hand to the genuinely needed members of the bereaved family that an appointment is provided. It is never meant to be a source of conferring any status or an alternate mode of recruitment.”
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399 [WRIT - A No. - 23843 of 2018]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, an employee shall be considered to be in service and entitled to his pay if no adverse action or order of termination is issued against him.
“The salary of the petitioners cannot be withheld or stopped unless the petitioners are suspended or dismissed from service,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Rajasthan High Court
Title: Rita Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 133
The Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) has reiterated that fixing a cut-off date for recruitment processes falls purely in the domain of the employer and such a cut-off date was uniform for all the applicants and could not be relaxed for certain participants. The Court said:
“It is a settled position of the law that the setting and beholding of a cut-off date falls purely within the domain of the employer, to be decided and/or imposed in accordance with the necessities accruing to them and the administration of the concerned examination.”
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a petition filed by the petitioner who had applied for the post of “Assistant Town Planner” pursuant to an advertisement of the selection process. As per the advertisement, even final-year students were allowed to apply for the post. The only condition was that such students were required to furnish their mark sheet of qualification under the respective course before the date of the written examination.
Title: Poonam Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Raj) 121
The Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) has reiterated that the scope of judicial review against transfer orders of government employees is minuscule. The Court observed that transfer being part and parcel of a transferable government job, government employees do not have fundamental protection to continue serving at a location of their liking.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that the decision regarding postings of government employees falls purely in the domain of appropriate authority or department which advances the department's output and service efficiency. The Bench held that the limited scope of the Court's interference with such transfer orders is possible if the orders are vitiated by some malice on the part of the transferring authority or are passed in violation of any statutes. The Court said that in the absence of such restriction on the court's writ jurisdiction, the smooth working of the government shall be heavily impacted if all the employees are allowed to contest their postings.
Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 349
Case No. : WP(C) NO. 13067 & 13978 OF 2023
Case Name : Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors
A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Justice Murali Purushothaman, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors, held that regulatory bodies cannot misinterpret judgments to wrongfully deny registration to the permanent employees.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Case No. : SWP No. 2237/2014
Citation: 2024 Live Law (JKL) 153
Case Name : Mst. Raja & Ors vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors
A single judge bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Mst. Raja & Ors vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors, held that after an employee retires, it is not permissible to recover excess payments made to them due to a mistaken interpretation of rules.
Karnataka High Court
Case Name- H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum in the case of H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors has held that Leave encashment cannot be viewed as discretionary bounties but as legal rights enforceable under the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Vijaya Bank AND M Ravindra Shetty
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 7791 OF 2003
The Karnataka High Court, while reversing an order of the Single bench directing reinstatement of a delinquent bank employee who was dismissed from service for lending money to fictitious persons without duly securing repayment of loans, has observed that the opinion given by the Central Vigilance Commission to the disciplinary authority need not be shared with the employee.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Vijaya Bank and agreed with its contention that no error has been committed by the management in taking the opinion of Central Vigilance Officer inasmuch as such a course is internalised vide Regulation 19 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. It said,
“The CVC is constituted under Section 3 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and it has statutory duties. One such duty is to advice the banks in matters of disciplinary proceedings. We do not subscribe to the views of learned Single Judge that the vigilance opinion should always be shared with the delinquent employee and that his say should be had on that. The object of consulting the Vigilance Commission is not in the interest of the employee but in the larger interest of the banking institution. There is no scope for assuming the contra position, in the absence of any such indication in the Regulations. In taking this view, we are mindful of the presumption that the principles of natural justice are not ordinarily excluded.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: LOVEPREET KUMAR AND ORS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that it is the absolute discretion of the State to prepare a waiting list in a selection process and the Court cannot ask to prepare the same.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "Court cannot ask to prepare waiting list. In the absence of waiting list, court cannot ask the State to fill up vacancy in case any selected candidate does not join. It is a settled proposition of law that it is absolute discretion of employer to specify terms and conditions of selection process. The Courts are not supposed to specify eligibility criteria/qualification or substitute opinion of authorities by its opinion."
Tripura High Court
Anganwadi Centers Fall Within Ambit Of “Establishment” Under Gratuity Act: Tripura High Court
Case No.- W.P.(C) No.624 of 2023
Case Name- Bina Rani Paul & Ors Vs State of Tripura & Ors
A Single Judge bench of the Tripura High Court comprising of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha in the case of Bina Rani Paul & Ors Vs State of Tripura & Ors has held that Anganwadi Centres fall within the ambit of “establishment” under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and thus Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers are entitled to Gratuity.
Case No. : WP No. 19588 of 2023
Case Name : Uemsha T N and Ors vs. State of Karnataka
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Uemsha T N and Ors vs. State of Karnataka, held that employees cannot be granted permanent status if their employment was through outsourcing contracts that were not meant to establish permanent positions.
Case: Shri G. Ramesh. v. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Case No. W.P. (C). No. 36199/2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Jyoti Mulimani while deciding a writ petition in the case of Shri G. Ramesh. v. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. has held that absence without leave constitutes misconduct in industrial employment and justifies disciplinary punishment.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
Case Title: M R Nagarajan AND The Syndicate Bank & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1337 OF 2015
The Karnataka High Court has said that punishment upon a delinquent employee should be commensurate with the gravity of guilt and while awarding punishment, factors like the long and spotless service rendered by the delinquent, the number and nature of promotions earned by him till initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the encomia awarded to him, the shortness of the period remaining for superannuation, etc. be considered.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar made the observation while allowing in part the appeal filed by M R Nagarajan, a former employee of Syndicate bank, who was charged of reckless lending of the Bank funds to the unscrupulous borrowers and of negligently compromising securities for the repayment. The Appellant-Bank Officer was awarded punishment of dismissal from service.
Case: Shri G. Ramesh. v. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Case No. W.P. (C). No. 36199/2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Jyoti Mulimani while deciding a writ petition in the case of Shri G. Ramesh. v. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. has held that absence without leave constitutes misconduct in industrial employment and justifies disciplinary punishment.
Patna High Court
Case title: Jai Jai Ram Roy vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No.16108 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 48
The Patna High Court observed withholding of pension and other benefits of a retired employee was unlawful in absence of any pending departmental proceedings against the retired employee under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
Justice Nani Tagia was considering the case of the Petitioner who retired in 2020 from the post of Programme Officer, Education Department. The petitioner received 90% of gratuity and only received 90% of the pension. Respondents withheld the remaining retirement benefits i.e., 10% gratuity and pension.
Jharkhand High Court
Case No. : W.P.(S) No. 3987 of 2021
Case Name : Shanti Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
A single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Justice S.N. Pathak, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Shanti Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, held that pension and gratuity benefits for employees cannot be withheld while criminal proceedings are ongoing.