Allahabad High Court Person Seeking Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Given Second Chance To Qualify Physical Efficiency Test After Having Failed Once: 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...
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.”
Bombay High Court
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.
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.
Rajasthan High Court
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 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.
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.