LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here is a Digest on decisions relating to Service matters. This is the final of four parts of this Digest.Part IPart IIPart III301. 'Air India Was A Sinking Company, Interests Of Employees Protected': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against DisinvestmentCase Title: Air India...
LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here is a Digest on decisions relating to Service matters. This is the final of four parts of this Digest.
Case Title: Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Air Corporation Employees Union challenging Air India disinvestment, who feared that certain terms and conditions of service enjoyed by the employees under the erstwhile public sector management will be severely affected.
"Considering the fact that Air India Ltd prior to the disinvestment initiative was a sinking company, a fortuitous transformation has happened for their own good. In the opinion of this Court, various conditions of service under the SPA are the best that the Government could wrangle out from the fourth respondent towards ensuring protection of the employees' interest. Therefore, the employees conjecturing they have been treated unfairly and unjustly is misplaced and misconceived", Justice V. Parthiban observed.
On the Petitioner's apprehension regarding alteration of service conditions, the Bench said,
"...Any decision concerning the service conditions would obviously be taken within the framework of the existing laws on the subject. In case of any infraction, deviation or violation of any existing laws, the employees always have a recourse to judicial mechanisms. This Court, therefore, need not assume any advisory role in emphasizing the sacrosanct legal position as every private or public entity is mandated to act in accordance with law."
Case Title: D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
Madras High Court has criticised the public servants who utilise mobile phones and cameras during office hours unnecessarily and directed the Government authorities to frame regulations in line with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.
Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was hearing a plea made by a Superintendent in the Tiruchirapalli Regional Workshop (Health) who wanted a direction to revoke her suspension and quash the order passed by the Director, Tamil Nadu State Health Transport Department.
Since the respondent state authorities made a submission that most of the public servants are using mobile phones and cameras in government offices, the court wondered if the employees are performing their duties and responsibilities as expected of them.
"...If such indiscipline and misconduct are allowed to be continued, no doubt, they are committing the greatest sin to the public by getting tax payers' money as huge salary. Therefore, the Government is duty-bound to ensure that the public servants are not wandering with mobile phones inside the office during office hours and it is to be regulated in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973", the court underscored in the order.
Case Title: P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kancheepuram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
Madras High Court has held that Supreme Court has not laid down any absolute proposition of law that suspension of an employee cannot continue beyond three months in the absence of serving the charge sheet within that time, or if the charge-sheet is served without reasoned order of extension.
The full bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice V. Bharathidasan concluded that the apex court case relied on by the suspended employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), would not apply and the order of suspension should be analysed based on the facts of each case, rules applicable and the gravity of charges etc.
Case Title: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
Justice V Parthiban of the Madras High Court has held that there is no cap on the number of deliveries for grant of maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act. The only differentiation is on the period of maternity benefit available. For a woman employee having less that two surviving children, the maximum period of benefit is 26 wees while for a woman having more than two surviving children, the benefit is restricted to 12 weeks.
Relying on Madras High Court judgment in N.Mohammed Mohideen & Anr vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Inspection) Chennai, (2008), the court observed that as long as Article 42 of the Constitution read with the provisions of the M.B. Act, 1961, is available, every female worker covered by the Act is entitled to claim maternity benefit without any ceiling on the number of deliveries made by them. The court also mentioned a High Court judgment in Ruksana v. State of Haryana (2011) and noted that Maternity Benefit Act would have an overriding effect over any service rules.
Case Title: M. Gowrishankar v. The Deputy Manager (SME) & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court has recently directed reinstatement of a workman, working with a bank and belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, who was dismissed from service after an incident of hanging Dr. BR Ambedkar's photo in the Bank premises, without prior permission.
The bench of Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad held that the Single Judge had wrongly interpreted that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had interfered with the punishment of removal from service solely on the ground of sympathy. The tribunal had in fact exercised power under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
The court also stated that the charges levelled against the appellant/workman will amount to a minor misconduct as per clause 7 of the Bank Settlement and warrants the punishment mentioned in the settlement. He did not face the charges of grave misconduct, which warrants the punishment of removal from service as contented by the bank.
306. Teachers Who Have Not Qualified TET Cannot Continue Service In Schools: Madras High Court
Case Title: K. Vasudevan v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The court ruled that it is mandatory for the teachers, who did not possess the minimum qualification of pass in TET prior to RTE Act, 2009 to acquire the same within the period of nine years i.e., within 31.03.2019. Teachers who do not possess this minimum qualification are not entitled to continue their service or seek increment.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar were hearing petitions filed by a teacher to sanction annual increment to them in the B.T. Assistant posts as well as incentive increment for having acquired Post Graduation, without reference to passing of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) with all consequential and other attendant benefits.
The court held that the purpose of TET is to assess the teachers on whether they have the adequate teaching competency and a positive attitude towards teaching. It is made compulsory to bring national standards and benchmark for quality in the recruitment process and to lay special emphasis on teachers' quality.
Case Title: Dr. P. Vijayan v. The Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
The Madras High Court has held that a past misconduct of the employee cannot be a reason for imposing a major penalty (under Indian Maritime University Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules), such as removal from service.
The bench of Justice C Saravanan was considering the petition filed by the former director of the Indian Maritime University, Dr. P Vijayan against the order of the Executive Council of the Indian Maritime University, dismissing him from services and imposing penalty of Rs. Rs. 22,65,469.
The court held that there was no scope for either suspending the Mr. Vijayan or imposing the penalty under the provisions of Chapter VII - The Conduct of the Employees of the University Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules and therefore such suspension and imposition of penalty was unsustainable. With regard to using of perks and privileges unauthorizedly, the court held that the same could not be recovered from Mr. Vijayan as he was not an "employee" of the university.
Case Title: Dr. S. Kothandaraman v. The Pro-Chancellor and connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Madras High court has held that the regulations prescribed by the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) are binding on all universities and institutions and these universities or institutions cannot prescribe rules on their own.
The bench of Justice V Parthiban was hearing two connected writ petitions filed by Dr. S Kothandaraman and Dr. A.V Raviprakash, Principal and Professor at the Pondicherry Engineering College against their forced retirement by the University. The university had prescribed the age of superannuation as 62 years as against the age of 65 years prescribed by AICTE.
The court held that the age of superannuation as prescribed under AICTE regulation is binding on the third respondent University and any other prescription of the age of superannuation repugnant to the AICTE regulation is to be held void and inoperative and it cannot be enforced in law.
Case Title: N. Karunanidhi v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court bench of Justice V Parthiban has recently held that when a competent authority/government makes an appointment to an unsanctioned post and when the employee has been engaged in such public service project for long years, the Government cannot turn a blind eye to these employees and say that they have no right for regularisation.
The court also directed the State Government to formulate schemes for the regularisation of such employees.
Case Title: Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research v. D Ganeshlan and Another
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 187
The Madras High Court bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq ordered compulsory retirement of an employee of Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research who had gained employment by submitting a fake SC community certificate.
The court also directed that the employee shall be eligible for only 40% of the pension benefits and not eligible for any other terminal benefits, such as gratuity, DCRG and the like, excluding the PF contribution, if any made by the employee.
The court also observed that though the employee was appointed only under the Open Category and further promotions were based on the merit, the initial appointment itself was void ab initio when it was based on a fake certificate produced by the employee concealing certain facts.
311. TET Not Mandatory For Teachers In Minority Institutions: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: M.Ani v. The Government of Tamilnadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
The Madras High Court has reiterated that TET qualification cannot be made applicable to minority institutions. The bench of Justice V Parthiban further confirmed the legal position that the prescription of TET qualification in terms of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was not applicable to minority institutions.
In light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pramti Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors. v. Union of India and ors. (2014), the court ordered the educational institutions to grant appropriate annual increment and medical benefits to the petitioner teacher and refund of any amount recovered from the teacher merely on the ground that she has not cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).
312. Departmental Proceedings Are Necessary Even For Termination Of Temporary Employee: Madras High Court
Case Titile: K. Murugan v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that the employer shall follow the procedures in departmental proceedings including framing of charge, giving an opportunity to the employee, conducting a disciplinary enquiry and thereafter deciding the issue even with respect to temporary employees.
The court also found merit in the submission of the petitioner that even termination of a temporary employee must be by following due procedure of law. The court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and the order passed by the Registrar. The court also directed that the Special Officer was entitled to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of issuing a charge and take a decision in accordance with law by either permitting the petitioner to rejoin duty or by placing him under suspension. The court also directed that the entire enquiry should be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of the order copy.
Considering the nature of allegations that were levelled against the petitioner, the court chose not to award back wages and held that the same could be decided only after the outcome of the enquiry conducted by the Special Officer.
Case Title: S.S.S Prahalathan v. The Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court bench of Justice SM Subramaniam has held that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted with proper permission to take up another Government appointment, where service qualifies. In such circumstances, the period of service in the previous employment shall be taken into consideration for calculating the pension benefits under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
The court agreed with the submission of the petitioner and was satisfied that the petitioner had obtained proper permission as contemplated under the Rules. The Board was aware that the petitioner had obtained permission and participated in the process of selection. Therefore, the resignation cannot be considered as an independent resignation and it is to be considered as consequential to the permission granted by the TWAD Board. Thus, it would not attract forfeiture of services under Rule 23, but falls under proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Rules.
Case Title: Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court recently observed that in matters of public employments, equal opportunities should be granted. Whenever a decision is taken with respect to recruitment, the competent authorities are bound to follow the recruitment rules in force by providing equal opportunities to all candidate. However, the court also observed that appointments can never be claimed as a matter of absolute right.
Justice SM Subramaniam was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by persons who took part in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) in 2016.
Case Title: Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has observed that persons belonging to the same class cannot be discriminated against by creating an artificial class between them on the basis of date of retirement.
The order of Justice C Saravanan came as a relief to the retired employees of various State Transport Undertakings (STU) who had approached the Court seeking implementation of the recommendations of the VII Central Pay Commission and for revision of their pension.
The Court also observed that the State Transport Undertaking were part of the State Transport Department. Thus, there was an understanding that the salaries and pensions of the employees in STUs will be on par with their counterparts in Government Services. Thus, there was no reason to discriminate those employees who have retired earlier.
Case Title: K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Justice M. S Ramesh of the Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of employees of Co-operative societies and directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary (Co-operation), and the Registrar of Co-operative societies, Government of Puducherry to pass orders for disbursement of unpaid salaries, earned leave encashment, EPF Contributions, ESI benefits, and other admissible entailments, due to them for their respective services. The court directed the dues to be paid within three months from receipt of copy of the order.
The court held that even though Society cannot be Characterized as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ was maintainable to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the Society. In the present case, since there was a public duty upon the Government, the petition was maintainable.
Case Title: P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever complaints are made to the Statutory Authorities, they are expected to act upon the same and not keep it pending indefinitely. The authorities are expected to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders in reasonable time.
Justice MS Ramesh of the Madurai Bench observed as follows:
"It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time."
Case Title: K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
While dismissing a petition for interim custody of Rs.10 lakhs seized in a job racketing case, the Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed his displeasure at the way people were willing to pay huge sums of money for getting a job. He enunciated that public appointments were made through a selection procedure and could not be obtained by paying bribes. He highlighted that such persons did not realise that it took years of work to earn such salaries and gave no thought to the plight of persons who scored more marks than them.
319. Take Criminal Action Against Police Officials Receiving 'Mamool': Madras High Court
Case Title: K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
While dismissing a retired sub-Inspector's plea challenging the order of punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years, the Madras High Court expressed its concern over police officers taking bribes and thereby affecting the welfare of people.
Justice SM Subramaniam was of the view that whenever receiving bribes is traced out, criminal cases should be registered against the police officials. These offences had to be dealt with without showing any leniency or misplaced sympathy.
The court also observed that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was to ensure that the process through which a decision was taken was in consonance with the rules in force and not the decision itself. In the present case, the court did not find any infirmity with reference to the quantum of punishment imposed.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. R Chitradevi and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court recently observed that the relevant date while considering the pensionary benefits of Teachers would be the date on which the teacher entered into service and not the date on which the appointment was actually confirmed.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice N Mala relied on the decision in V.Vasanthi v. State of Tamil Nadu wherein, on similar facts, the court had held that the service period of teachers commences from the date of appointment and not from the date of approval, even though the monetary benefits start to accrue only from the date of completion of the training. Thus, the service rendered before the completion of training was also to be considered for pension.
321. Efflux Of Time Valid Ground To Reject Claim For Compassionate Appointment: Madras High Court
Case Title: B.Ramprakash v. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court has observed that a compassionate appointment cannot not be claimed as a matter of right, and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions so specified, can the scheme be extended. The court observed that a compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment as no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is tested but the appointment is under exceptional circumstances i.e, the death of an employee.
Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that Providing compassionate appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on account of the sudden death became vanished.
In the present case, the mother of the petitioner who was working as a Junior Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Police died on 14.04.1995. The court also noted that the application was filed on 17.03.2004, i.e. after a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased. "Now after a lapse of about 27 years, the benefit of the Scheme could not be extended in favour of the petitioner", the court noted.
Case Title: Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Dismissing a writ petition filed against a circular issued by the Union Bank of India taking away Leave Travel Concession for travel abroad, Justice SM Subramaniam observed that such decision was taken in view of the policy of the Government and in the absence of any statutory right, the same did not warrant interference. The court observed as under:
Concessions or facilities extended by way of Administrative Instructions beyond the scope of the rules cannot be construed as an absolute right to the employees.. Regulation 44 remains as the same, providing right to travel within India by the shortest route and therefore, the Administrative Instruction/ Circular, granting an additional facility by way of discretion to travel abroad is to be construed as concession/facility and cannot be construed as a service right, so as to enforce the same.
Case Title: Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court recently directed a doctor, who was in violation of his compulsory service bond executed for a period of 10 years, to either serve a bond period of two years or pay an amount of Rs. 50 lakh in breach thereof.
The court thus set aside the impugned order passed by the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College wherein the college had called upon the young Doctor to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crores as damages for breach of bond condition.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed as under:
I am more than certain that when it comes recovery of bond amount, the authorities will adopt an uniform policy throughout the State. Either the petitioner has to serve for the bond period of two years atleast from now on or he has to pay the amount of Rs.50 Lakhs as fixed by the Government themselves. The impugned order is quashed with the aforesaid clarifications.
Case Title: C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
While adjudicating a man's plea for permanent absorption into the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) on the ground that he had been continuously rendering temporary services since 25 years, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the practice of back door appointment that was prevalent in the country.
Justice S M Subramaniam opined that the practice of back door appointment was infringing the fundamental rights of all those candidates who were trying to secure public employment through open competitive process.
Case Title: P.Arumugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
While upholding the disciplinary action against an erring police official, the Madras High Court heavily criticized the manner in which his fellow officials had given false statements before the trial court in the connected criminal case.
Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that police officials making false or incorrect statements before the criminal courts could be construed as "misconduct" under the Government Service Conduct Rules.
Case Title: C Jagadeesan v. Additional Director General of Police and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
Coming to the rescue of a dismissed Police Officer, the Madras High Court recently observed that once the competent authority has regularized a period of medical leave, no further disciplinary proceedings for misconduct would sustain.
In the present case, though the petitioner was said to be absent from service for over three years, the court held that the same was condoned by the regularisation of his absence.
A bench of Justice SM Subramaniam held that though normally such a lengthy period of absence was not condoned by the authorities, especially if the Police Personnel is a chronic absentee or habitual absentee, however, once the authorities have accepted the reasons for absence, the misconduct is condoned.
Case Title: P Mihiran v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court recently confirmed the order of the Managing Director of TASMAC to revert an employee from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman after observing that his absorption/promotion was not made in accordance to the established rules or principles. The employee had approached the court seeking to quash the order of the Managing Director.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the petitioner could not establish any Rule for his absorption and thus was not entitled to such promotion.
328. Madras High Court Orders Complete Abolition Of 'Orderly System' From TN Police In Four Months
Case Title: U Manickavel v State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court on Tuesday passed final orders in the case against engagement of uniformed Police officers as orderlies at the residence of higher officials in Tamil Nadu.
Justice SM Subramaniam today directed the authorities to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished within a period of four months. The court also directed the authorities to remove the orderlies appointed in the residence of retired officials as the same amounts to illegality and a violation of the law.
Further, if any complaint/ information was received with respect to misconduct or offence by officials, the authorities were directed to conduct enquiry and initiate all appropriate actions under the relevant laws and under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
With respect to illegal occupation of the official police quarters, the court directed to initiate steps for eviction in the manner known to law.
Case Title: R Muthukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
While dealing with a petition seeking conversion of some Police Officers from Armed Reserve to Law and Order, the Madras High Court observed that suitability and eligibility, etc had to be assessed by the concerned departments and High Courts could not interfere in such matters. Interference was only possible when there was an irregularity in appointments.
The court emphasized that the authorities were the best persons to assess the eligibility of the personnel. Since the personnel posted in the Law and order category had more responsibility and accountability, the government thought it fit to prescribe certain additional criteria. Further, conversion could not be claimed as a matter of right. Even if the conversion was granted to certain personnel violating the guidelines, illegality could not be a ground to claim equality.
Case Title: Prasanna Gunasundari v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
The Madras High Court recently observed that the power to entertain mercy petition of any convicted person under any law to which the executive power of the State extends is only available to the Governor of the State.
Thus, the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) has no statutory power to entertain mercy petitions against orders passed in departmental action. Such an exercise of power by the DGP is thus in violation of the Indian Constitution. The court noted that the exercise of jurisdiction by authorities in excess of their jurisdiction would result in colorable exercise of power.
Case Title: R Prema Latha and others v State and others
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 472
The Madras High Court recently declared as null and void the appointment of 254 assistant professors in colleges managed by Pachaiyappa Trust after it was found that the appointments were tainted with malpractice.
"The Management of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board is directed to terminate the services of all the appointed candidates forthwith," said the court in the judgment dated November 17.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that since it was not possible to segregate the tainted and non-tainted appointments, it was preferable to cancel the entire appointment.
Case Title: M Muthu v Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently observed that trained Uniformed Personnels, under no circumstances, can be utilised to perform the menial job in the residences of Higher Authorities.
Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that trained Uniformed Personnel are expected to perform the combatant duty and other law and order duties in the interest of public at large. It added that forcing them to perform menial jobs in the name of orderlies is below their dignity.
The bench has therefore directed the Home Ministry to take strict action against higher officials whenever an incident of practicing orderly system is reported. It also directed that apart from taking departmental action, the salary payable to officials engaged as an orderly must be recovered from the errant higher official.
Case Title: Md. Yakup Ali v. Md. Abdul Rajak & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Man) 4
The Manipur High Court came down heavily upon an arbitrary and irrational promotion of a 'Company Commander' to the post of 'Battalion Commander' in the Manipur Home Guards, ignoring the officers who were senior to him.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice M.V. Muralidaran criticised the lackadaisical manner in which the Commandant General of Home Guards exercised his power.
334. Pension & Other Retiral Benefit Rules Have To Be Interpreted Liberally: Meghalaya High Court
Case Title: Shri. Anwarul Kadir Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 31
The Meghalaya High Court recently observed that rules with regard to pension and other retiral benefits are beneficial in nature and have to be interpreted liberally.
The observation came from Justice H. S. Thangkhiew:
"In the scheme of things, especially in matters of pension and grant of terminal benefits, it has to be kept in mind that, provisions or rules with regard to pension, which are beneficial in nature have to be interpreted liberally. In the instant case, the petitioner had taken Voluntary Retirement (in 2005), after serving the requisite number of years to entitle him to pension and other terminal benefits. As such, to give a interpretation that he is not entitled to DCRG, as the Notification amending the provision was issued only on 06.04.2015, cannot be taken to be a justifiable ground to deny the DCRG to the petitioner. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on his contention that, the notification is an amendment which is more clarificatory in nature, and if the legislative intent was to exclude Voluntary Retirement, the same would have been made clear in the rules itself."
335. Interviews Mostly Guided By Nepotism In India: Meghalaya HC Bats For Transparent Selection Processes
Case Title : Pynskhemlang Nongrang Vs. The Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation & ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 39
The Meghalaya High Court has voiced its concern over 'favouritism' and 'nepotism' affecting government's recruitment drives. While referring to Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution that guarantee equality and non-discrimination, Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee observed,
"Just as religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence are to be kept out of the consideration, favouritism and nepotism would also have no role to play in the process of selection. At the end of the day it has to be a fair process and a reasonable procedure adopted for the selection; or it would fall foul of the constitutional ethos."
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Agarwala v. Registrar General of Orissa High Court & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 4
The High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a Judicial Officer challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed against him in the year 2012 on account of not possessing the standard efficiency required to discharge the duties of a Judge. While referring to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Babulal Jangir, (2013) 10 SCC 551, the Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice B.P. Routray observed that a very limited scope of judicial review is available in cases where an order of compulsory retirement is passed. After giving due consideration to facts and law, the Court consequently held,
"The overall assessment of all the materials including the ratings of performance in the CCRs, the nature of allegations, charges in the pending disciplinary proceeding against him, the report of the review committee, his performance on judicial as well as administrative side, his reputation as such during entire service period are among the several factors considered by the authority before recommending his compulsory retirement. An overall consideration of all those factors, tested on the touchstone of the standard of efficiency of the Petitioner as a Judicial Officer reveals that the decision of authority cannot be said to be as mala fide or arbitrary or based on no evidence."
Case Title: Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Praful Kumar Sethi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 10
In the instant matter, the writ appeals were directed against the order passed by a Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the Respondent No. 1 in each of the writ appeals. In each of the said writ petitions, the prayer was for a direction to the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha, to enhance the age of superannuation of the said four employees from 58 to 60 years. The Single Judge had held that there was no justification in the State Government not acting on the recommendation of the Appellant and in discriminating against the writ petitioners who stood on the same footing as other employees, in whose case the age of retirement was enhanced from 58 to 60 years. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice R.K. Pattanaik held that to confine the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation to one set of employees and deny it to another was plainly discriminatory.
Case Title: Ex-CFN Jagadish Chandra Mohanty @ Mohapatra v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 20
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice R.K. Pattanaik held that Regulation 125(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 cannot be employed to deny condonation of short-fall up to six months in pensionable period of service of a serviceman who was discharged on a voluntary basis. The Court observed, since Regulation 125(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army is identically worded as Regulation 82(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Navy, the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gurmukh Singh v. Union of India (decision dated 22nd November, 2006 in W.P. OAC No.430 of 2005) as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Surender Singh Parmar should be applied. As a result of which, Regulation 125(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army cannot be relied upon by the respondents to deny to consider the case of the Petitioner for condonation of the short fall in the pensionable service up to six months.
Case Title: Akshay Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 28
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that a person cannot be removed from his service without complying the relevant statutory pre-requirements. It observed that in so far as the Odisha Service Code is concerned there is a clear-cut statutory provision that even in a case of a Government Servant remaining absent from duty exceeding five years, he shall be removed from service but only after following the procedure laid down in the Rules. Law is well established that when the statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same is to be done in that manner or not at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner can be prima-facie held guilty of disobeying the orders of the authority by remaining continuously absent for more than five years, yet he cannot simply be removed without taking recourse to the prescribed statutory process.
Case Title: Kamalakanta Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 29
The High Court reinstated a physically handicapped person who was engaged as a teacher, but was removed later, on the basis of a report of Appellate Board which found him scarcely disabled. While granting relief to the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra wrote,
"It must be kept in mind that the State is supposed to be a model employer and as such, cannot be allowed to take actions that are arbitrary and not countenanced in law. In the instant case, the Opposite Party-authorities are guilty of approbation and reprobation, i.e. of blowing hot and cold at the same in the manner as described above thereby adversely affecting the right to livelihood of the Petitioner included under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
341. Odisha Judicial Service: High Court Turns Down Plea To Relax 'Upper Age Limit'
Case Title: Pratap Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik dismissed a writ petition which sought for relaxation in the 'upper age limit' of the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS), in similar line with the increase in the upper age limit for recruitment to 'civil posts' of the state. The Court held that in the present case, it has not been found expedient for such relaxation to be extended. It also noted that under Rule 41 of the OSJS and OJS Rules while certain provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 and the provisions of the Odisha Service Code have been made applicable, but the Odisha Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 2022 and the amendments thereto have not been made applicable to the OJS and OSJS.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
The High Court has dismissed challenge to a notification which notified the decision to compulsorily retire a former Additional District & Sessions Judge (AD&SJ) of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service (OSJS). While upholding the said notification, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik held that it is entirely possible that he received his promotions in due course, but the parameters that weigh with the Court when it comes to retaining a Judicial Officer in service after attaining the ages of fifty years, fifty-five years and fifty-eight years would be based on a review of the entire service career of the Officer and not just on a few years of performance. Thus, the grant of promotion a few months earlier would not ipso facto preclude such a review for the purposes of the decision to be taken regarding compulsory retirement of such Officer.
Case Title: M/s. Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 59
The Court held that it is not mandatory for the Central Government to refer a matter of national importance to the National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication even if it satisfies the twin conditions mentioned under Section 7-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "It is not mandatory for the Central Government, even if the twin conditionalities are satisfied, to refer the disputes for adjudication to a National Tribunal. It may so happen that because of the placement of the parties, the dispute can well be adjudicated by a geographically proximate Tribunal."
Case Title: Amitav Tripathy v. Orissa High Court, represented by the Registrar General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 64
The High Court ordered 're-valuation' of two answers given by a candidate who appeared in the examination for direct recruitment in the cadre of District Judge from the Bar. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik held that the wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate despite having given the correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks.
Case Title: Sabyasachi Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 65
The Court came down heavily on National Law University of Odisha (NLUO) for applying different principles in case of different employees without having a codified service condition. It was adjudicating a plea by an ex-Assistant Finance Officer Mr. Sabyasachi Mohanty, who moved the Court against his arbitrary termination by the University. Expressing displeasure at the conduct of the University for setting different service standards for different employees, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath remarked,
".. it also makes it clear that the University in the guise of no permanent service conditions on its own employee, is applying different standards in case of different employees which cannot get approval of law. Once you set a principle that should be followed till it is replaced only by a better principle, if any. The attitude of the University in the circumstance makes it clear that the University applies different principles in case of different employees, which ought to be prohibited."
Case Title: Suryakanta Parida v. Odisha Public Service Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 66
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that a government employee has no 'vested right' to seek posting to a particular position even if the desired position is lying vacant. It observed, "Even if vacancies are there, the petitioner does not have any vested right to claim for such posts since it is under the absolute domain of the Government."
Case Title: Amitav Tripathy v. Orissa High Court, represented by the Registrar General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 70
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Mr. Amitav Tripathy, who had challenged marks assigned to him in the examination conducted for direct recruitment from the Bar in the cadre of District Judge. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik, in its order passed on 11th May 2022, had observed the case to be "rare and exceptional" and had ordered the Registrar (Examinations) to send two questions for revaluation by a 'Law Expert'. The revaluated answer-sheet was produced before the Court. After such revaluation, the petitioner got only additional 0.5 mark, which was 1 mark less than the qualifying marks for the interview. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and observed, "The net result is that the candidate gets just 0.5 mark additional for the answer to Question No.1 in Group-D. In all, therefore, the Petitioner secures 45.5 + 0.5 i.e. 46 marks. Since he does not secure 47% in paper II, there is no scope for calling him for interview."
Case Title: State of Odisha, represented by the Asst. District Veterinary Officer (Disease Control), Balasore v. Kailash Chandra Mallick & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 75
The High Court held that the principle of "last come first go" cannot ordinarily be departed from by employers while retrenching labourers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). While departing from the principle, it is a pre-condition that the employer has to record 'reasons in writing'. While dismissing writ petition by the employer (State), a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,
"The fact that the workmen were engaged for more than 240 continuous days and had worked for more than 5 to 7 years on a continuous basis which the Management was unable to dispute factually. In fact, MW 1 supported of the case of the workmen to that extent. The further fact that a person junior to the workmen had been retained while the workmen had been retrenched was also unable to be disputed by the Management."
Case Title: Dr. Minaketan Pani v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 81
In a landmark decision, the Orissa High Court held that honourable exoneration in departmental proceedings would warrant quashment of criminal prosecution which emanated from the same set of facts. While quashing criminal charges against the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar held,
"…in the facts and circumstances of the present case where on the same charges on which the Petitioner is facing criminal trial he has been honourably exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the Court adopts the reasoning of the decisions in Radheyshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (supra) and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI (supra) and sets aside the impugned order dated 15th January 2009, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) Cuttack in G.R. Case No.1057 of 2007."
Case Title: Rabindra Panigrahi v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 85
The Court rejected the plea of a candidate who challenged the evaluation process of the examination conducted for appointment of contractual Hindi teachers in government secondary schools. While dismissing the writ petition, the Single Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"The court needs to see what is legally possible and not what possibly dehors the legal process. A thing that may seem plausible on the grounds of natural justice, may not be possible legally. As succinctly put by Mathew, J. in his judgment in the Union of India v. M.L. Kapur, "it is not expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the Audi alteram partem rule to the twilight zone of mere expectations, however great they might be."
Case Title: Ugrasen Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 88
The Orissa High Court held that applications of employees to change their date of birth should not be entertained when they apply for the same at the fag end of their service career. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed, "Apart from the notification and the said guidelines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of cases have categorically laid down that the employees should not be permitted to change the date of birth at the fag end of their service career. In the instant case the application of alteration has been filed at the fag end of the Petitioner's service career."
Case Title: Sovakar Guru v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 89
The Orissa High Court held that entitlement of an employee or an ex-employee to his salary or pension, as the case may be, is an intrinsic part of his right to life under Article 21 and right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. While allowing payment of interest on the arrears of a retired government employee, a Single Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"Moreover, the employees cannot be allowed to suffer because of inaction on the part of the employer for no fault of the employees. The employee is definitely entitled to get the payment as per the service conditions on due dates and/or in a given case within reasonable time. The employees, had the payment received within time and/or on due dates, could have utilised the same for various purposes."
Case Title: Kantaro Kondagari @ Kajol v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 90
The Orissa High Court ordered grant of family pension to a transwoman, who was allegedly discriminated on the basis of her gender while allowing pensionary benefits after the death of her parents. A Single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held,
"…this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner as a transgender has every right to choose her gender and accordingly, she has submitted her application for grant of family pension under Section 56(1) of Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. Further such right has been recognized and legalized by judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NALSA's Case (supra) and as such, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all."
Case Title: Dulamani Patel v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 91
The Orissa High Court denied the prayer made by a government employee who insisted to get promoted to a post situated at a particular place. It held that no government employee has a legal or statutory right to claim a post of one particular place and thereby avoiding transfers. While, dismissing the writ petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"The Petitioner's prayer insofar as promoting and repositioning him in the school where he was continuing or at a nearby place, is unsustainable as the Petitioner was holding a transferable post and under the conditions of service applicable to him, he was liable to be transferred and posted at any place within the State of Odisha. The Petitioner had no legal or statutory right to insist for being posted at one particular place."
Case Title: Siba Prasanna Pathy v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 94
The Orissa High Court held that there is no absolute rule that one ad-hoc/temporary employee can never be replaced with another ad-hoc employee. It further observed that an ad-hoc employee has no vested right to his post and he can anytime be replaced by any other ad-hoc employee, if found incompetent. In holding so, the Court apparently differed with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court recently in Manish Gupta and Ors. v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Ors. While dismissing a challenge against termination of a guest faculty, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"…there cannot be any absolute rule or principle that one ad hoc or temporary appointee can never be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary appointee. For example, if a temporary appointee in service is incompetent, can he not be allowed to replace with a competent or more competent person. This Court sees no reason why the competent person cannot be appointed in place of the incompetent person, even if both appointments are ad hoc or temporary appointees."
Case Title: Pradip Kumar Sahoo v. Principal Secretary to Govt., School and Mass Education Deptt. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 95
The Orissa High Court held that it is highly improper to keep the cases of compassionate appointment pending for years, as the very purpose behind the same is to mitigate hardship of a bereaved family. While making orders for compassionate appointment in favour of two persons after seven years delay, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed, "It is stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress."
Case Title: Bhuban Mohan Behera v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 97
The Orissa High Court held that candidature of a candidate seeking appointment to a public office cannot be outrightly and arbitrarily rejected only on the basis that he holds 'dual degrees'. While providing relief to a candidate, whose application was rejected for such reason, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi opined,
"Indisputably, in the case at hand, this Court is of the opinion that in the matters of appointment, the rules provided by the appointing committee have to be strictly followed. In the present case, OPSC has not provided any instructions for candidates holding dual degrees. Even though this can be considered as a distinctive case, however it is arbitrary to out-rightly reject the candidature of the petitioner."
Case Title: Naba Krishna Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 111
In an important decision, which can be tagged as a remarkable quantum leap in the field of disability jurisprudence, the Orissa High Court held that bar against 'inter-district transfer' cannot be made applicable to teachers who are recognised as persons with disabilities. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"Hence, it may be concluded that the bar under 1977 rules for inter district transfer shall not be applicable on a person with disability. Moreover, in view of provision of Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, read with the Govt. Notification (supra) permits inter district transfer of a person with disability."
Case Title: Dr. Satya Narayan Bhujabala & Anr. v. Veer Surendra Sai Institute of Medical Science and Research, Burla and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 118
The Orissa High Court reiterated that Courts should be extremely reluctant in imposing their own views disregarding the statutes or rules governing appointment in the field of academics. The Court declined to interfere in a petition, which sough intervention against denial of candidature for the want of 'chance certificate'. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi relied on the following observation from Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth & Ors.,
"…the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass-root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded."
360. PIL Can't Be Entertained In Disputes Relating To Service Matters: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Hansmina Kumari Das & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 125
The Orissa High Court held that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be entertained in disputes pertaining to 'service matters'. While adjudicating a matter relating to alleged irregularities in the appointment of primary school teachers, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik followed the above principle as has been laid down and reiterated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases.
Case Title: Nilakantha Tripathy v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 126
The Orissa High Court upheld a notification issued by the Government of Odisha, which compulsorily retired a Chief Judicial Magistrate ('CJM') from his service, citing the step to have been taken 'in public interest'. While affirming such notification, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik also held that compulsory retirement is not a punishment; thus, there is no need to give prior hearing to the concerned officer before notifying such retirement. It observed,
"It is now well settled that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the necessity of giving a hearing to the Petitioner prior to such decision being taken does not arise. This has been explained in a large number of cases including Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299…"
Case Title: Dr. Srikant Panda v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 144
The Orissa High Court held that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to mandate authorities to publish a 'wait list' in an examination held for recruitment. While rejecting such prayer, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed,
"It is not possible for the Court, if there is no requirement in the advertisement and as per the governing Rules for preparing any 'wait list', for a mandamus to be issued to the Opposite Parties to offer any vacant post to the Petitioner irrespective of the fact that he does not figure in the merit list. Whether or not to have a waiting list for any particular selection is a policy decision to be made by the recruiting entity and it is not for the Court to dictate that for every selection there must be a wait list."
Case Title: Basanti Nayak v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 150
In an important verdict, the Court held that a 'married daughter' cannot be denied the benefits under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after the death of her father. While reaffirming the rights of a married daughter to seek compassionate employment upon death of her father, a Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"…this court is of the view that marriage by itself is not a disqualification and impugned policy of the State Government barring and prohibiting the consideration of the 'married' daughter from seeking appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, merely on the ground of marriage, is plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees, as envisaged in Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution of India."
Case Title: Kalandi Charan Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 160
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo held that a 'select/merit list' cannot be deemed to be a 'reservoir' for the purpose of appointments. While denying appointment to a candidate who approached the Court, 15 years after publication of the select list, the Court placed reliance on the following observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors.:
"A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the Court at a belated stage."
Case: Managing Committee, Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam College, Palwal & Others v. Sabir Hussain & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 20
An employee cannot seek protection against the dispensation of services if he has attained the employment by fraud, giving forged documents, and misleading the hiring committee, specifically when his employment was offered to him based on such forged documents and he had also been afforded ample opportunity to make his case, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.
Case Title: D.N. Asija and others v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 23
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Central Government to resolve the anomalies that crept in the defence pay scale with the implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission.
Case Title: Puran Chand Sharma v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 45
A single bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recommended departmental action against a Chief Judicial Magistrate for violating a High Court direction in a case.
Observing that the Magistrate's action not only showed lack of understanding of fundamental principles of law but also reflected judicial indiscipline, Justice Manoj Bajaj referred the matter to the Chief Justice for initiating departmental action.
Case Title :Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 63
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that employees appointed on contractual basis without any advertisement and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, do not have right to regularization.
Case Title: Pappu Bawariya and Anr. v. District Collector Civil Station and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 78
Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 07, 2022, while dealing with a writ petition filed by the petitioner to quash an order denying her request for service benefits and compassionate appointment on account of her husband's death, the court held that a decision needs to be taken as expeditiously as possible since the petitioner and her four minor children continue to live in penury.
Case Title : Swaran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 80
Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that entitlement for the grant of family pension to the dependent parents needs to be seen after the widow or the children loose their eligibility for the grant of the said benefit.
Case Title: Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited Versus State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 84
Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that whereas adjudicatory mechanism under the Working Journalists Act is intended to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employer qua the question of claim raised by the employee, the employer cannot claim any hearing before making of the reference by the appropriate government under Section 17(2) of the Act.
Case Title: Seema Rani Versus Anurag Verma and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 109
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with the plea moved by the widow of a Class IV employee of the State, contending her right to pensionary benefits, ordered the salary of the Home Secretary, Punjab, to remain stayed till the entire amount of the pensionary benefits is released to her.
Case Title : Mahavir singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 117
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed a writ petition whereby an employee of the Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam had sought that the daily wage service rendered by him till his services were regularized should be taken into consideration for computing his pensionary benefits. It further noted that though the petitioner's services were terminated in the year 1982, the same was held to be bad by a Labour Court and the Petitioner was reinstated in service with back wages. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of counting his daily wage service as qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.
Case Title: Bhakra Beas Management Board & another Versus Jagdish Ram
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 126
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the order of a single Judge, directing the Bhakra Beas Management Board to give the benefit of 9 years promotional scale to one of its employee, (original petitioner) since the benefit had been extended to a junior.
Case Title: Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Ors.| CWP-2667-2022 | 28 April 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 134
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in matters pertaining to the appointment to any office under the State, the general category seats are to be filled from the merit list first and thereafter, the reserved category seats are to be allocated as per the assigned quota. Thus, regardless of whether a candidate is found or not found entitled to reservation sought by him, he still has a right to be considered in an open general category as per the intent of Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, Justice Arun Monga held.
376. Person With Single Testicle Not Unfit To Serve Indian Navy: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Union of India and others v. Neeraj Mor
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 150
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that having 'single testicle' is not a disability that would render a candidate unfit for serving the Indian Navy. In reference to an order passed by the Centre declaring the Respondent herein unfit for enrolment in the Navy for the reason that he has a single testicle, a bench comprising Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri observed.
Case Title: Sukhjeet Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 182
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear, in this case with respect to appointment of Lambardar, that an authority exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot compare merits and de-merits of the parties involved.
Case Title : Sourav v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 202
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that when a family member has already availed financial assistance under the prevalent Rules at that time of the death of the government employee, they cannot agitate the claim of compassionate appointment under the new Rules.
Case Title: Ram Mehar Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 207
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed relief to the ex-employee of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, who retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation but his pensionary benefits were withheld by the respondents.
Case Title : Satpal v. Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat Division, Sonepat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 214
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that if the petitioners, who are daily wagers litigating for their rights, are not allowed to lead their evidence then they would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Case Title: Rajneesh Bansal & Anr V/S State Of Haryana & Ors And Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Ph) 258
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by different categories of judges claiming seniority over and above recruits from other sources. The petitions were filed seeking re-determination of inter-se seniority of judges by counting the time spent in their ad-hoc service. The petitioners claiming seniority over other recruits belonged to three categories: (a) judges of the fast-track courts who were absorbed in regular service from ad-hoc positions; (b) promotee Judges falling in the category of accelerated promotion for seniority, and (c) direct recruit Additional District Judges.
382. Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Treated As Reservation Of Any Kind: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Sudhir Kumar versus State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 278
Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a writ petition against denial of compassionate appointment over 19 years delay, observed that compassionate appointment should not be treated as a "reservation" of any kind.
Case Title: Jagdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 286
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently came to the aid of a candidate who was denied appointment to the post of Police Constable citing criminal antecedents, on the ground that he was neither named in the alleged FIR, nor summoned or charge-sheeted.
Case Title: Mandeep Kaur v. Canara Bank and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 291
Directing Canara Bank to issue appointment letter to a woman, whose offer letter was cancelled in 2018 on the ground of a pending FIR, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said mere registration of a criminal case against a candidate can never be a ground for denying the right to participate in a recruitment process and to secure a public appointment.
385. Master's In Public Administration & Political Science Inter-Changeable: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Yudhvir v. Reena and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 307
While deciding in favour of a candidate holding Master's in Public Administration, who was denied appointment to the post of 'Assistant Professor, Political Science' by a single bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a division bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal has now held 'Master's in Public Administration' to be inter-changeable with 'Master's in Political Science,' for the purposes of appointment to a post, otherwise subject to the prerogative of a given university.
Case Title: Raj Pal v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 329
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against a retired police inspector from Haryana in 2021 for an alleged misconduct which took place between 1986-88.
Case Title: Shobha Devi v. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
The single bench of Rajasthan High Court has held that married daughter of a deceased employee falls within the definition of ‘dependents’ for compassionate appointment.
“The perception of the daughter, after marriage no longer being a part of her father's household and becoming an exclusive part of her husband's household, is an outdated view and mindset,” Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed.
The court observed that any discrimination between unmarried and married daughter and married son and married daughter would be in clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
388. Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Accept Claim For Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay Of 17 Years
Case Title: Smt. Parwati Devi W/o Late Shri Mool Singh v. Director (G) and Nodal Officer (PG)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed refused to accept petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand and Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, ruled, “We are of the considered opinion that the contentions put forward by the counsel for the petitioners, do not carry any merit, as the subsequent representations were made after a decade. Thus, this Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court.”
Case Title: Kalu Ram Jangid v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the petitioner is a married brother of the deceased government servant, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dependant and to be entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.
Justice Rekha Borana, while dismissing the writ petition, opined,
“Admittedly, the petitioner is married and therefore, in terms of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dependant and to be entitled for compassionate appointment. In view of the specific provisions of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 01.01.2019.”
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
The Rajasthan High Court upheld termination of an employee who obtained compassionate appointment by concealment of facts. The petitioner was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him allegedly on account of paucity of space in attestation form.
The court observed that the petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The court opined that the tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner.
Essentially, the petitioner was given appointment on the post of LDC on compassionate grounds on 24.12.2012. As per him, under Clause-13 of the Attestation form, he had disclosed all information, except Clause-13(J), wherein on account of paucity of space, he was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him. On account of said concealment, respondents issued show cause notice which reflected that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was also rejected and termination order was passed. Later, CAT, Jaipur Bench upheld the termination order holding that it was not against the Rules, that there is no allegation of mala-fides and natural justice was adhered to by the respondent. Being aggrieved against the same, present petition was filed.
Case Title: Punjab National Bank and Another v. Mukesh Kumar Soni
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the decision of a bank denying compassionate appointment saying that the deceased's family was not facing ‘indigent circumstances’ warranting employment under the State's scheme of 2014.
PNB had rejected the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment after his father expired while serving as a Head Cashier, on the ground that the family was not facing indigent circumstances.
The instant appeal was preferred against a single bench order reversing the Bank’s decision.
The bank contended that the elder son of the deceased employee is employed in TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) with an annual income of ₹6.47 lakhs. The family had received terminal dues to the extent of ₹16.42 lakhs with no financial liability. Apart from this, the family owned two houses and received a family pension to the tune of ₹15,993 per month.
Case Title: Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan and Others with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
In a significant development, a 3-judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court has observed that the use of the word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 depriving a married daughter from right of consideration for compassionate appointment, violates the equality clause and cannot be countenanced.
While answering a reference made by the division bench, the 3-judge bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Arun Bhansali, observed,
“The provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which excludes the married daughter from definition of dependent prior to its amendment vide notification dated 28.10.2021, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the word ‘unmarried’ from the definition of ‘dependent,’ is struck down. Further, in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 also the word unmarried daughters/adopted unmarried daughter, shall be read as daughters/adopted daughter.”
Case title: Chandra Devi and another v. State Of Rajasthan and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 243
The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has observed that a compassionate appointment cannot be denied to the child born from the second wife of the deceased employee.
To arrive at the conclusion, the bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 wherein it was observed that a compassionate appointment policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate.
Case Title: Kshama Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 252
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, while disposing of a writ petition filed by a married woman claiming compassionate appointment upon her father's death, has held her to be entitled to claim such appointment, since the application for compassionate appointment was made by her while she was still unmarried.
The single bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition and passed an order directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment along with consequential benefits within a period of three months.
“This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed; for the reasons, firstly, admittedly, at the time of submitting the application for compassionate appointment the petitioner was unmarried; secondly, the objection raised by the respondents regarding marriage of the petitioner is not sustainable as the petitioner solemnized marriage after one year of submitting the application for compassionate appointment.”
Case title: Hemendra Puri v. Jai Narayan Vyas University and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has observed that a child who was born from the second wife of the deceased employee is eligible for a compassionate appointment.
To arrive at the conclusion, the bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 wherein it was observed that a compassionate appointment policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate.
Case Title: Henna Subba & Ors. v. State of Sikkim & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Sik) 3
The Sikkim High Court has refused to interfere with the State Government's 'One Family One Job' scheme. While hearing a challenge to the state policy, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai observed,
"As such, the bona fides of the exercise undertaken under the Scheme cannot be held to be suspect since its object and purpose was to provide one family one job. If we are to forensically analyse the entire recruitment process at this belated stage, that too, based on technicalities, in that event, each and every person who has secured State employment following initiation and execution of the "One Family One Job Scheme", would be required to be made parties in the present writ proceeding. That apart and in any event, the beneficial nature of the Scheme cannot be doubted and examined at this stage purely on the basis of technicalities as provided under the relevant Rules."
Case Title: Tshering Samdup Bhutia and Ors. v. State of Sikkim and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Sik) 7
The Sikkim High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the Sikkim State Subordinate Fisheries Service (Amendment) Rules, 2019 which did away with the age relaxation given to the ST, SC, MBC and OBC candidates by the Fisheries Rules, 2008.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that it is open for the government while framing rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given.
Case Title : Dr. Mool Raj Kotwal v State of Sikkim and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Sik) 11
The Sikkim High Court recently observed that retired re-appointed employees cannot be denied the benefit of leave encashment, unless the re-engagement was contractual in nature.
Referring to Rule 36 of the Sikkim Government Service (Leave) Rules, 1982, Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed:
"The respondents' suggestion that there was financial burden upon the state exchequer by providing the retired reemployed Government Servants leave encashment for earned leave again for the period of re-employment is not justified considering the fact that several others similarly placed had been given the benefit. As such, isolating the petitioner's accrued benefit to save the purported burden on the state exchequer would be arbitrary and discriminatory."
Case Title: N. Parvathalu v. APSRTC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
The Telangana High Court recently noted that the punishment of removal from service for the charges of unauthorized absence (merely 5 days in this case) was very harsh.
The Writ Petition had been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of removal from service and consequently to direct the petitioner to discharge his duties along with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages in the interest of justice and fair play.
Case Title: C. Chandra Mohan Reddy v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
The Telangana High Court refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction, stating that the petitioner had not exhausted its alternate remedy by filing an application before the Employees' Insurance Court for adjudication of disputed issues under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
Moreover, it noted that the writ petition was not filed for enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights nor there was any violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as notice was issued to the Petitioner for personal hearing.
Case Title: D.M., TSRTC v. Gollamandala Subba Raju Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
The Telangana High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal recently as it confirmed the reliefs granted by the Industrial Tribunal to a workman for wrongful termination of service. The reliefs were reinstatement of the workman into service with 50% back wages.
A workman was issued an order of punishment by disciplinary authority. The Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workman into service with 50% back wages vide award in 2005. The employer being aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal filed a Writ Petition and the award passed by the Tribunal was upheld.
The Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (2007) held that in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was the normal rule. However, the adjudicating authority may have to also take into consideration the length of service of the workman, the nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employer and similar other factors while deciding the issue of back wages.
Case Title: Yeddandi Venkataiah v. M/s.Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
The Telangana High Court held that Beedi workers are "workmen" under Section 2(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act. Justice M. Laxman further held that rolling of Beedies is a "manufacturing process" and hence a Beedi roller is a workman under the Act.
Case Title: M/s. The AGA Khan Academy v. Assistant PF Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
The Telangana High Court in a Writ Petition ruled that an order cannot be passed under Section 7C of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF act) for determination of escaped amount unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case
Justice G. Radha Rani observed,
"Section 7C mandates that the employer shall be given reasonable opportunity of representing his case before redetermining the amount due from him. The word used is "shall". But, as seen from the record, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner for representing his case before issuing proceedings under Section 7C of the Act. He was not given an opportunity to submit his objection with regard to initiation of proceedings under Section 7C of the Act."
Case Title: K. Suresh Kaushik v. State Bank of Hyderabad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
The Telangana High Court dismissed a Writ petition filed by a delinquent employee arguing that once the Enquiry Officer had found no materia against him, the Disciplinary Authority cannot differ with the finding of the Enquiry authority.
Justice G. Sri Devi observed,
"The final decision rests with the disciplinary/punishing authority which can come to its own conclusions, bearing in mind the views expressed by Enquiry Officer. It is also well settled that the disciplinary authority in order to differ with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it need not give reasons to contest the correctness of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. What is necessary is that the disciplinary authority should record the findings having support of materials and evidence on record."
Case Title: M.A. Mahaboob v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
The Telangana High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by an employee of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, challenging his 'premature' retirement and seeking reinstatement into service along with all consequential benefits.
Justice P.Madhavi Devi observed that alteration of date of birth by employer in service records of the employee, when he is at verge of his retirement is not permissible.
Case Title: N.R Indira v. The State of Telangana and 3 others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 97
The Telangana High Court held that the pension and gratuity amounts of a retired employee cannot be attached for satisfaction of a decree of any Court.
Justice P. Madhavi Devi relied on the Supreme Court decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank wherein it was held that "the pension and gratuity of the Petitioner cannot be attached and cannot be withheld for appropriation of a decree of any Civil Court."
The court observed that in clause (g) to Section 60(1) of CPC (Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree), the pension and gratuity amounts of a retired employee cannot be attached for satisfaction of a decree of any Court.
Hence, the Court directed the Respondent to pay the entire amount of pension and gratuity as eligible. However, it was made clear that Petitioner would not be entitled for payment towards encashment of leave as it is not exempted from attachment under Section 60 CPC.
Case Title : All Tripura EPS Pensioners' and Employees' Association v The State of Tripura
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 38
The Tripura High Court recently observed that employees of statutory organizations cannot claim, as a matter of right, the pensionary benefits, as provided to few of the corporations who have been able to generate their own funds with one-time support from the state government.
The observation was given by Justice Arindam Lodh while dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed against several State government undertakings, including Tripura Road Transport Corporation, Tripura Tea Development Corporation, Tripura Rehabilitation and Plantation Corporation, Tripura Handloom and Handicrafts Development Corporation, Tripura Schedule Tribe Co-operative Development Corporation, Tripura Small Industries Corporation, Tripura Jute Mills, Tripura Industrial Development Corporation, Tripura State Co-operative Marketing Federation and Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board.
Case Title: Bimal Chandra Sarkar Versus The State of Tripura, with connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 20
The Tripura High Court recently dismissed the plea of a person claiming to belong to scheduled caste, seeking quashing the summons issued by Member-Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Committee for verification.
The decision came from Justice T. Amarnath Goud who held that merely because the Petitioner had a favourable report in his favour as contemplated under Rule 7A(5) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992, there is no absolute bar on SLSC for conducting the enquiry and for issuing and cancelling the certificate in terms of Rule 7A(4) thereof.
Case Title: Sri Suman Miah and Anr. v. The State of Tripura and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 18
The Tripura High Court recently observed that if a person has been employed on co-terminus basis, and it is only an engagement order and it has not been given any legitimate rights for regularization then no right ensues on such person for regularization of their services.
The observation was laid by Justice T. Amarnath Goud:
"In view of above arguments and also on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appointment of the petitioner itself was on the basis of co-terminus and it is only an engagement order and it has not been given any legitimate rights for regularization, since the said appointments have not been made on regular basis and against the sanctioned posts. The extension of services is also for a limited period specifically, it has been mentioned that the services would come to an end by vacation of the Lokayukta. In view of the same, no rights have been conferred to the petitioners for regularization of their services."
Case Title : Nandan Datta v State of Tripura and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 17
The Tripura High Court recently observed that a person engaged in contractual service cannot be said to have a "legitimate expectation" regarding extension of services beyond the contractual tenure or to continue in service despite expiry of contract period.
The observation came from Justice T. Amarnath Goud:
"In so far as the continuity of service beyond 30.06.2020 is concern, it is not legitimate expectation or the promise made by the respondents (employer) for continuing his service beyond 30.06.2020. In so far as the violation of principle of audi alteram is concern, the question of issuing any notice before putting an end to the tenure of petitioner's service is not indicated in the service condition in the year 2002 when the petitioner got into service to the said post for the first time."
Case Title: Sri Suman Miah and Anr. v. The State of Tripura and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 18
The Tripura High Court recently observed that if a person has been employed on co-terminus basis, and it is only an engagement order and it has not been given any legitimate rights for regularization then no right ensues on such person for regularization of their services.
The observation was laid by Justice T. Amarnath Goud:
"In view of above arguments and also on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appointment of the petitioner itself was on the basis of co-terminus and it is only an engagement order and it has not been given any legitimate rights for regularization, since the said appointments have not been made on regular basis and against the sanctioned posts. The extension of services is also for a limited period specifically, it has been mentioned that the services would come to an end by vacation of the Lokayukta. In view of the same, no rights have been conferred to the petitioners for regularization of their services."
Case Title: Sri Bijoy Kumar Hrangkhawl v. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 33
The Tripura High Court recently observed that employers must "reasonably accommodate" disable persons into service and that failure to do so violates their rights under Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The observation came from Justice Arindam Loud:
"The conduct of the concerned officer is not in consonance with the object the legislatures wanted to achieve. Keeping in mind the objectives of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the respondents should realize the challenge the petitioner has been facing and accommodate him with humane approach. Any failure to meet the needs of disabled person will definitely breach the norms of reasonable accommodation."
Case Title: Vibhu D/o Dr Bharat Bhushan Chauhan V. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 13
Uttarakhand High Court has directed the State's Public Service Commission to declare the result of the recruitment process to the Assistant Conservator of Forest by deeming the petitioner who provisionally appeared in the mains exam as a qualified candidate.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe relied on an interim order of the Supreme Court to give the final judgment in the matter. The court also added that technical grounds should not be cited for rejection of application when the petitioner has qualified in the preliminary examination to the post.
Case title - Om Prakash Gaur & another v. State of Uttarakhand & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 15
The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a plea filed in September 2021 challenging the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission LT Grade Teacher (Arts) Recruitment process 2020.
The Order issued by the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari would essentially mean that the HC's earlier order of stay issued in September 2021 on the recruitment process of LT Arts Assistant teachers stands withdrawn.
Case Title: Om Prakash Gaur & another v. State of Uttarakhand & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 16
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a petition challenging the decision of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission to permit non-B.Ed. candidates to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade.
It was the case of the petitioners that the eligibility criteria was enlarged mid selection process, and the same is illegal.
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari dismissed the plea stating that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by inclusion of non-B.Ed. candidates in the selection process, therefore, it cannot be said that rules of the game have been changed midway to the prejudice of the petitioners.
Case Title: Krishna Kuwar Singh Dewari & Ors. v. Kripal Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 24
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that merely because the communication sanctioning a post does not indicate any promotion Rules, it cannot be presumed that there exists no Rule for promotion to the higher post from the feeder cadre.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe observed,
"…it does not stand to reason that, for gaining eligibility for promotion from one post to another, there would be no requirement of minimum qualifying service in the feeder cadre. Merely because the order sanctioning the posts of Assistant Accounts Manager, did not indicate the promotion Rules, it does not follow that there was no Rule framed or applicable for promotion, requiring minimum service in the feeder cadre."
Case Title : Manish Chauhan and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 25
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed an advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission notifying vacancies for the post of Assistant Professors in Government Colleges, finding it to be in violation of Rule 11(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 and the Supreme Court's decision in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and Anr.
The notification prescribed Horizontal reservation in a manner that in the Un-reserved category, no reservation was available to the physically handicapped candidates in the subject of Political Science. Similarly, in the History, no reserved seat was shown for a physically handicapped candidate who may also be a Scheduled Tribes candidate.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe observed, "The manner in which the State has sought to apply Horizontal reservations is completely contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (Supra)...Persons with disabilities are entitled to horizontal reservation cutting across all categories."
The Court explained that an otherwise eligible and qualified candidate/person with disability would first be allocated a seat and depending on whichever category that person belongs to, i.e. whether the person is a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Classes, or is a General Category candidate, the seat in that category would stand exhausted.
Case Title : Veer Singh Yadav v State of Uttarakhand & others.
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 32
The Uttarakhand High Court recently observed that adverse report against an employee, which is not communicated to him, cannot be relied upon by the employer to deny promotion to a government servant in view of Rule 5 of "Uttarakhand Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Report and Allied Matters), Rules 2002.
The observation was laid by Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari: "Un-communicated adverse report cannot be relied upon to deny promotion to a government servant in view of Rule 5 of "Uttarakhand Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Report and Allied Matters), Rules 2002. In view of aforesaid statutory provision, an adverse entry, which has not been communicated to petitioner, cannot be relied upon for denying promotion to him."