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 first of four parts of this Digest:1. [GPF Rules] Rule Framed Under Article 309 Can't Be Replaced By Executive Order Issued Under Article 162: Allahabad High CourtCase title - Anurag Mehrotra v. State Of U.P.Thru...
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 first of four parts of this Digest:
Case title - Anurag Mehrotra v. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Finance Deptt. Lko & Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The High Court has observed that any rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can only be replaced by an Act of an appropriate legislature and the same cannot be replaced by an executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed thus as it set aside a government's order of 1986 withdrawing the benefit of bonus required to be paid under Rule 12 of the General Provident Fund (U.P.), Rules, 1985.
Case Title: Sumit Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Dept. Of Medical Edu.Govt. Of U.P.Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently held that when employment in a public service is obtained by playing fraud, the long continuation in such service would be immaterial to uphold the appointment.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed,
"it is evident that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact and played fraud for securing public employment and, therefore, his long continuation (15 years) would not be of any help to him to continue to hold his post inasmuch as his appointment was void ab initio."
Case title - Mohammed Naseem Ali v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. And Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Stressing that the employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service, the High Court recently upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a Government employee who was found to be indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females, and scheduled caste people.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also observed that an employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service if on consideration of the service record, it is found that the work of such an employee has not been upto the mark or he has become 'dead wood' for the organization.
Case title - Alok Shukla And Another v. State Of U P And 2 Others
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 88
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertains to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State and that it is not open to the Courts to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further opined that the selection and appointment to any post should be made strictly in accordance with terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules.
Case Title: Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98
The High Court made it clear that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot and does not oust the High Court's power of judicial review contained under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary in nature. It is also to be noted that the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are constitutional powers and the same cannot be excluded by legislation. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act cannot curtail the powers under the grundnorm being the constitution," a Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed.
6. No Class-IV Employee Should Normally Be Transferred Out Of District: Allahabad High Court
Case Title - Smt. Maya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The High Court observed that no Class-IV employee should normally be transferred out of the district. The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary made this observation while setting aside a transfer order passed against a Class IV Employee as it noted that the same was punitive in nature.
Essentially, the petitioner Smt. Maya (a Class IV Employee) was transferred by State Medical Health Department from Lucknow to Kanpur by transfer order dated July 12, 2021, on administrative grounds, however, the officer responsible for her transfer did not give any reason whatsoever for transferring her.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 102
In a relief to 3 candidates who participated in the 2018 Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) recruitment process but were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm), the High Court directed the Central Government to consider their candidature if they remove their tattoos.
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma directed the Centre and the SSB that if the petitioners' tattoos are removed then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which the petitioners had applied.
Case title - Smt. Sharma Devi v. State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Lko And Ors
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The High Court held that a daughter-in-law is very well entitled to allotment of a fair price shop on compassionate grounds.
The Bench of Justice Manish Mathur relied upon an earlier judgment of the High Court wherein it was held that a widowed daughter-in-law is eligible for allotment of a fair price shop on compassionate grounds.
Essentially, the Court was dealing with a writ plea filed by one Sharma Devi whose application for allotment of fair price shop on the compassionate ground had been rejected by the Government authority on the ground that she does not come within the definition of 'family' as described in paragraph IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5th August, 2019.
Case Title : Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Dairy Development And Others
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The High Court observed that the Precarious financial condition of a corporation can not be a ground to delay payment of pensionary benefits that are due to superannuated employees.
The Bench of Justice Irshad Ali made this observation on a plea filed by one Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh who sought direction upon the Government authorities to make payment of him a full amount of gratuity to along with interest in view of the amended provisions of Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Case Title - Dr. Sonal Sachadev Aurora v. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Prin.Secy.Medical Educat. And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh for initiating a departmental inquiry and thereafter terminating the service of a woman doctor 2 years after she sent her resignation.
Quashing the termination order passed against the woman and noting that the petitioner/woman was harassed, the Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary opined that any working woman, more particularly, a mother is required to be accommodated as far as possible.
Case title - Smt. Kavita Sonkar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court observed that it is not the function of the Court to adjudge or evaluate the suitability or desirability of a particular qualification that may be prescribed for a particular service.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus while hearing a writ plea filed by one Kavita Sonkar who appeared and cleared the pre and main examination conducted by the State Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Review Officer.
Case title - Rahul Kumar In Wria 323 Of 2022 v. State Of U.P Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Edu. Dept. U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 141
The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) refused to interfere in the Single Judge order dated Jan 27, 2022, staying the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint 6800 additional candidates as primary assistant teachers in the state in addition to already appointed 69000 candidates.
With this, the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I endorsed the decision of the Single bench order of Jan 27, 2022, wherein it was concluded that the UP Government can't appoint more than 69000 candidates without issuing an advertisement regarding the same, since in the original advertisement issued by the state, only 69000 posts were intended to be filled.
13. Departmental Inquiry Against Govt Servant Can't Be Made A Casual Exercise: Allahabad High Court
Case title - State Of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue And 4 Others v. State Public Service Tribunal And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 145
The Allahabad High Court has said that a departmental inquiry against a government servant is not to be treated as a casual exercise and the principles of natural justice are required to be observed so as to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.
The Bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed thus as it upheld an order of the UP State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow setting aside the order of punishment passed by the State of UP against respondent no. 2 (deceased govt employee).
Case title - Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 154
The Allahabad High Court dismissed two pleas seeking direction to the High Court administration to provide the benefit of the 10% reservation to the E.W.S. General Category candidates for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, 2020.
Stressing that once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for the authorities to insert any new clause, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi dismissed the pleas.
15. Compassionate Appointment Not A Bonanza, Can't Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161
Considering various aspects relating to compassionate appointments, the High Court observed that there is no general or vested right to compassionate appointments and that it can't be treated as a Bonanza.
This observation was made by the bench of Justice S. P. Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerjee while DISMISSING a special appeal filed by one Iqbal Khan challenging the decision of a single judge.
Case title - Prakash Chandra Agrawal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 241
The High Court directed the Director, JTRI to prepare an appropriate program for the training of inquiry officers and disciplinary authorities to ensure compliance with UP Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in conducting departmental inquiries.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary was dealing with the plea of one Prakash Chandra Agrawal challenging the punishment order passed against himself who was awarded censure entry.
Case title - Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 246
The High Court quashed an order passed against an Uttar Pradesh Police Constable removing him from service allegedly because he entered into an argument with the Station Officer in an inebriated state.
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma observed that the finding, that the Constable was in a drunken state, was arrived at simply because the petitioner was smelling of alcohol.
Calling it an absolutely erroneous decision on the part of the Enquiry Officer, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur dismissing him from services.
Case title - Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1959 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283
"It is deplorable that the representative of the public compel the public servant to pass illegal orders and the public servant comply their illegal dictates without any demur," observed the High Court in one of its orders.
The Bench of Justice Siddharth made this stern remark while allowing a plea filed by one Basrat Ullah challenging an order passed by Special Secretary, UP Govt removing him as the Principal of Madarsa Darul Uloom Ahle Sunnat Badrool Uloom at District Basti.
Case title - Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286
The High Court dismissed a petition filed by UP Judicial Services Association along with some of the judicial officers (having less than 3 years of experience as of December 31, 2021) seeking a direction allowing them to appear for the suitability test 2020 for promotion to UP Higher Judicial Services.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the High Court committee's decision to include the names of only those judges who have completed three years in service can't be interfered with by the Court in its Writ jurisdiction.
Case title - Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 289 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 287
The High Court observed that failure to properly advertise vacant posts is a violation of the fundamental right of the prospective/potential candidates and is also unfair to such candidates. The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir issued this order.
Essentially, one Ravi Pratap Mishra had moved before the single judge stating that he was appointed as a clerk in a school, however, Mishra the District Inspector Of School had refused to sanction his appointment as a clerk on the ground that the advertisement clerical recruitment had been published in a newspaper having less circulation in the concerned area.
Case title - Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3793 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288
The High Court quashed an order transferring an employee of the Central Bank of India from one place to another as it noted that his wife is a permanently disabled person having 100% disability.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that as the husband (employee) is the caregiver of her wife [as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016], therefore, as per the bank's transfer policy, he shall be exempted from routine/ rotational transfer.
Case title - Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 306 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Referring to several landmark rulings, the Allahabad High Court has observed that by way of an interim order the order of suspension termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings in Court.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was essentially dealing with an Intra Court Appeal filed questioning the interlocutory order passed in March 2022 wherein the termination order against an employee of Abss Institute Of Technology was stayed during the pendency of the writ plea filed by the employee challenging the termination order.
Case title - Sunil Kumar Chauhan And 186 Others v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others along with connected petitions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the entire Police Establishment including the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) shall be deemed to be one Police Force. and that transfer can be made from PAC to Civil Police or vice versa.
With this, the bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery upheld the order of the UP Govt transferring constables and head constables in Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (UPPAC) to the civil police and dismissed dozens of petitions filed against the transfer.
Case title - Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [WRIT - A No. - 47252 of 2003]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 377
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
"The object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis suffered by the bereaved family due to the unexpected death of the employee concerned," the Court remarked.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while dismissing the plea of one Sanjay Kumar Singh who sought appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his adoptive father, who died in harness in January 1995.
The Court also held that the claim of the petitioner for a compassionate appointment at a belated stage, after 27 years of the death of his father, cannot be sustained.
Case title - Km. Mohini v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 4174 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 381
The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be given to a sister in the presence of a wife.
The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed that under the UP Dying in Harness Rules 1974 as amended by 2021 rules, a wife has the first right to a compassionate appointment, and in her presence, the Sister does not have the right to a compassionate appointment.
Case title - Pramod Kumar Singh And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. And 11 Others along with a connected plea [WRIT - A No. - 4225 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 404
The Allahabad High Court dismissed two pleas challenging criteria of different yardsticks for physical efficiency tests for males and females for the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board Excise Constable recruitment exam.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that the classification of men and women in physical efficiency is not arbitrary and therefore, the allegation of discrimination between men and women is baseless and cannot be accepted.
"In the present recruitment, females have succeeded in huge numbers and it appears that unsuccessful male candidates are not able to cope up with the fact that female have overnumbered them in merit. It is an example of 'male chauvinism' which is unacceptable in twenty first century," the Court further remarked.
Case title - Eklavya Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.P.W.D. And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 408
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that after the retirement of a government servant, the state government is empowered under regulation Rule 351- A of the Civil Service Regulations to order the recovery from his/her pension, however, the same can be done only where it is established that some financial loss has been caused to the State.
With this, the bench of Justice Alok Mathur quashed an order of the UP Government holding the petitioner (retired Executive Engineer) guilty and awarding a punishment of deduction of 5% from his pension for a period of three years.
Case title - Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Anther [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 408 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court has held that after the retirement of a government servant, if such employee is found to be guilty of grave misconduct or is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government, it is the Governor who can take action as provided in Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.
With this, the Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Shree Prakash Singh held that the penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed on an officer/employee after his retirement after attaining the age of superannuation, however, withholding or withdrawing a pension and ordering the recovery from the pension is permissible and that too, by an order of the Governor as per the Article 351-A of the CSR.
Case title - Gomti Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 17078 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court observed that the marriage of an individual is no ground to deny him/her a compassionate appointment as entering into a marital relationship doesn't raise a presumption that a person is financially stable.
With this, the bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan set aside an order of the DIG (Establishment) Police Head Quarter, U.P denying compassionate appointment to the younger son of a UP Police constable who died during his service tenure.
Case title - Awadh Bihari Verma v. State Of U.P.And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 21333 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 499
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to count the period of ad-hoc service rendered to grant pensionary benefits to an employee who retired in 2013 with a regular service record of over 17 years.
With this, the bench of Justice Rajiv Joshi quashed an order of the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad whereby the period of ad hoc service rendered by an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) had not been taken into account for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits to him.
Case title - Yatendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2670 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 501
The Allahabad High Court observed that a period of 1.5 years is an 'extremely unreasonable long time' to keep disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee after the submission of an inquiry report.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed so while dealing with the case of one Yatendra Kumar (suspended General Manager, U.P. Nirman Nigam Ltd), challenging his suspension order passed by the UP Government in June 2020 in contemplation of departmental proceedings initiated against him.
Case title - Sukh Vir Singh And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrancer And ors [WRIT - A No. - 2516 of 2019]
Case title - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 504
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to grant a minimum pay (at par with regular employees) to 4 IVth class contractual employees who are working with U.P. State Legal Services Authority since 2005.
This order came from the bench of Justice Alok Mathur which relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjeet Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 where it was observed that the employees, who are continuously discharging duties commensurate with regularly appointed persons, are also entitled to be paid the same wages in accordance with the provisions of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Case title - Manisha Kanaujia And Another v. District Magistrate And Another [WRIT - A No. - 6428 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 505
The Allahabad High Court has restrained the UP Government, block-level officers, and various other departments from passing any orders for the engagement of Anganwadi Workers in any other work/duty including election duty.
"...this Court is of the considered view that work which is being discharged by Anganwadi Workers is of considerable importance, looking into the fact that in one block there is only one worker and in case that one Anganwadi Worker is assigned duty in elections or any other work then entire nursing and lactating woman including pregnant women would not be taken care of and would adversely affect the health of public at large," the Bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed
Case title - Vijay Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko. And ors along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 520
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to certain candidates who participated in the process of recruitment of 69000 Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools but their candidature was canceled by UP Goverment due to discrepancies/errors mentioned in the application form relating to "Shiksha Mitra".
The bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that in case a candidate furnishes some information in his/her online application form by way of which, he/she put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled.
Case Title: Rishab Murali v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
In an interim relief to a law graduate from Mumbai, the Bombay High Court has allowed him to participate in the ongoing recruitment process for post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate (First Class), despite being "age-barred."
The petitioner contended that he was age-barred as the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) did not issue any advertisement for applications last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
36. Bombay High Court Reinstates CISF Constable Accused Of Raping Colleague's 5-yr-old Daughter
Case Title: Udaynath Tirkey v. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force & Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
The Bombay High Court has held that being accused of a heinous crime is not a good enough reason not to conduct a departmental enquiry before dismissing a constable from service under Rule 39(ii) of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules akin to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
The court quashed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)'s orders regarding the dismissal of a constable for allegedly raping a colleague's five-year-old daughter. Instead, it ordered the constable's reinstatement with a rider that CISF was not barred from initiating an enquiry subsequently.
37. Death Caused By Stress & Strain During Employment - Bombay High Court Directs Employer To Compensate
Case Title: Smt. Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh v. Tarvinder Singh K. Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court directed an employer to compensate the kin of a truck driver, observing that the stress and strain caused during his employment had ultimately led to his demise.
Justice NJ Jamadar held that the deceased driver's heart attack could be termed an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as contemplated under Section 3 of the Workman's Compensation Act.
"I am persuaded to hold that in the facts of the instant case, the death of the deceased can be said to have been accelerated on account of the stress and strain associated with the long-distance driving for almost 18 days in trying circumstances. Any other view of the matter would defeat the beneficial object of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act,1923."
Case Title: Mosa Anand Rajulu v. M/s. V. Ships Monaco and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 15
An unregistered agreement between an employer and employee cannot be enforced to seek more compensation than what is already prescribed for cases of disability under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 (ECA), the Bombay High Court held.
"Section 29 thus reinforces the principle that compensation is required to be paid in accordance with provisions of the Act, 1923, save and except in a case where the agreement is registered under section 28," the court held.
Case Title: Raigad Zilla Parishad & Ors. v. Kailash Balu Mhatre & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
Bombay High Court reiterated that Standing Order 4C of the Model Standing Orders, framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be invoked with reference to State Instrumentalities or such local authorities, which do not have the power of creating posts.
When an establishment cannot create posts, the declaration of ULP under Item 6 cannot be made against such establishment since temporary workers cannot be regularised, in the absence of sanctioned permanent posts.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
The Bombay High Court reiterated that the work that a victim was performing before the accident has relevance to the determination of the question as to whether he is permanently incapacitated to perform the work.
The Court observed that the distinction between physical disability and functional disability has to be kept in mind while determining whether the applicant has suffered 100% loss of income.
Case Title: Shankar Bhimrao Kadam & Ors. v. Tata Motors Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
In a dispute that spanned over 17 years, the Bombay High Court held Tata Motors liable for unfair labour practices under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for hiring hundreds of workmen in its manufacturing unit as temporaries to deprive them of the status and privilege of permanent workmen.
Justice Ravindra Ghuge directed the automobile major to pay compensation to the 52 petitioners and set aside the Labour Court's orders. The bench observed that the company had a monitoring department to ensure temporary workers were disengaged before they completed the mandatory days of continuous employment.
"I find that the respondent-management has systematically prevented these temporaries from completing 240 days in continuous employment and had foisted involuntary unemployment on these temporaries before they could complete 240 days only to paint an imperfect picture that the work had come to an end and, therefore, these temporaries were disengaged by efflux of time, which is an exception to retrenchment u/s 2(oo) (bb)," the bench observed.
Case Title : Sadiq Shafi Qureshi v. M.D. and C.E.O., Union Bank of India and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
The High Court held that an employee who is entitled under the applicable laws to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement before the intended date of such voluntary retirement, loses his right to do so by accepting the retirement benefits.
"We find that the petitioner's conduct of receiving various service benefits from 14.09.2017 disentitle him to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service as prayed by him."
Case Title : Smt. Varsha Deepak Desale v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
The High Court came to the rescue of a widow, who was denied compassionate appointment by the Education Department in place of her deceased husband who was working as a Peon in an educational premises.
She was denied the benefit on the ground that the proposal seeking sanction to the new staffing pattern is pending with the Government. "There is no necessity to have sanction to the new staffing pattern for appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed."
Case Title: Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad v. Union of India & ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
The Bombay High Court, through a bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and GA Sanap, held that if a government servant is suspended on account of charges for a serious crime, then if he is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, he is not entitled for regularisation of the period of suspension by treating him to be on duty. The discretion belongs to the competent authority.
In view of registration of FIR under Sections 419 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner, a worker in the in the Ordnance Factory, he was placed under suspension on 12/11/2009 under Rule 10(1)(b) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules, 1965).
In trial, the Judicial Magistrate observed that considering the nature of evidence on record the charge against the accused (petitioner) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On that premise the said accused were acquitted. The Petitioner had sought revocation of suspension and regularization of suspension period as 'on duty' based on this acquittal.
Case Title: Smt. Sushama Arun Patil v. The State of Maharashtra and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
A Rural Development Minister doesn't have the power to interfere with the affairs of the Zilla Parishad by cancelling the transfers orders of teachers merely because a teacher complained to him, the Bombay High Court ruled.
The court observed that the Minister's order directing the Zilla Parishad CEO to cancel the transfer of certain teachers was without jurisdiction, therefore the CEO's subsequent order complying with the Minister's direction would be bad-in-law.
Case Title: Muktabai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 167
The Bombay High court recently sought to answer whether an employee can seek condonation of interruption in service to "enhance" the pension, where the employee already has qualifying service for pension.
A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SG Mehare stated that, "the purpose of condoning the interruptions in service is to make an employee entitled to the pension by adding the days of his service and not to enhance the pension for the reason that the pension is to be calculated and paid on the basis of the last salary drawn on the substantive permanent post."
Case Title: Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. v. The Chief Conciliator, under Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 183
The Court imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakh on Adani Electricity Limited payable to Mumbai Electric Workers' Union while dismissing a petition in which the company claimed it was no covered under Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (MIR Act).
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
The Bombay High Court disposed of a petition after the State Government assured the court that it would sympathetically and expeditiously consider the case of a young woman for appointment to a non-constabulary post in the police department, three years after a medical test declared her a "male."
The woman had qualified with flying colours in 2018 from the Nashik Rural Police Recruitment drive from the Scheduled Caste category but based on her medical test, her marks didn't make the cut off for the men's category.
Case Title: Narayan v. Mrs. Sangita and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 214
The Bombay HC recently dealt with a case wherein a truck driver, who was the employee of the owner of the truck met with a vehicular accident. As he had initiated compensation proceedings under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("M.V. Act"), his claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (now Employees Compensation Act 1923) ("W.C. Act") was not entertained by the commissioner.
The court held that the compensation granted under chapter X of the M.V. Act does not forfeit the right of the employee to claim the compensation under section 3 of the 1923 Act as provided under Section 167 of the M.V. Act.
50. ESI Act Applicable To BCCI As Its Activities Are Commercial In Nature : Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
The Bombay High Court has upheld an order holding that the nature of activities conducted by the Board of Control for Cricket in India are commercial activities under the ESI Act making the regulatory body liable to pay its employees accordingly.
Justice Bharati Dangre, in a judgement passed last week, dismissed an appeal filed by the BCCI and upheld the finding of the Employee Insurance Court (ESI Court) that the Board was covered under the notification dated 18/9/1978 issued under the provision of Section 1(5) of the Employee State Insurance (ESI) Act by the Maharashtra Government.
Case Title - Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 266
The Bombay High Court dismissed a government bus conductor's appeal against dismissal of service stating, "The approach in this country of believing that when one works for government no action can ever be taken no matter how persistently one is found to be doing wrong is an approach that needs to now stop as fast as possible."
A division bench of Justices G.S. Patel and Gauri Godse said that proportionality of punishment must be considered in any case but that doesn't mean that every single infraction be treated leniently. "When one assesses the doctrine of proportionality, one looks not only at the immediate cause inviting punishment but also at the entire context and, in a given case, a pattern or a history of conduct especially past conduct", the court stated.
Case Title- Om v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. & Shital v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..
Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 267
A full bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a compassionate appointee for a reserved category post wouldn't be exempted from submitting a caste validity certificate especially if the original holder of the post didn't produce a caste certificate during his lifetime.
Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ravendra Ghuge and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi dismissed two writ petitions seeking directions to the Department of Rural Development to exempt the petitioners from producing a caste certificate since their appointment was on compassionate grounds.
A judgement authored by Justice Ghuge answered the following question in the affirmative-
"Whether, a compassionate appointee, is not required to submit a caste/tribe validity certificate when the parent had secured employment, on the basis of a caste/tribe certificate, on a post which was specifically reserved for a backward category and who did not submit a validity certificate until his/her demise while in service?"
Case Title- Vikram Dhondiram Raskar and Ors.. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..
Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 272
The Bombay High Court said that candidates aggrieved by violations of recruitment guidelines should raise their objections before appearing for the interview.
"It is well settled that a candidate who is called for the interview and takes part in the interview, cannot turn around and pick holes and contend that the selection process was conducted in violation of the guidelines", a division bench of Justices R. D. Dhanuka and M. G. Sewlikar observed.
It thus dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of recruitment process of a co-operative bank and the appointments thereof.
The court also stated that the writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 is not maintainable as the co-operative bank doesn't come under the definition of "State" in Article 12 of the Constitution.
Case Title- Vikas Balwant Alase & Ors.. v. Union of India through Secretary & Ors.. with connected matters
Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 275
The Bombay High Court declared as "unjustified" and "Illegal" Maharashtra Government's decision to allow members of the Maratha community to avail benefits under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category midway through an electricity distribution recruitment drive.
The court said that Maratha community candidates (SEBC candidates) were aware that their selection process would be subject to Supreme Court's order in the Maratha Reservation matter.
So once SC's interim order barred them from being considered under the reserved category of MSEBC Act in 2020, the State couldn't have issued a GR permitting eligible candidates to be considered under the EWS reservation.
Case Title: Somnath Jotiram Chavan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
The Bombay High Court held that courts should refrain from interfering in results of examinations as judicial intervention affects all candidates and not just the parties seeking relief.
"Indeed, we would venture to suggest that except in the most exceptional circumstances, there should not be such interim interventions by a Court for the simple reason that allowing the benefit to even a single candidate (let alone 250) irredeemably alters the balance in regard to the other candidates who have managed to cross the qualifying threshold criteria", the court stated.
Justices G.S. Patel and Gauri Godse dismissed three writ petitions challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) order upholding the decision to delete certain questions from a recruitment exam conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC).
Case title: Swapnil Prakash Parab v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
The Bombay High Court upheld cancellation of a man's candidature for a post at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) for non-disclosure of a criminal case against him observing that honesty and integrity are the inherent requirements in public employment.
Justices S. V. Gangapurwala and R. N. Laddha dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of petitioner's candidature for a post at the BARC.
Case Title: Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
The Bombay High Court held that an employee deemed to be suspended due to criminal charges is not entitled to back wages despite his acquittal as a deemed suspension is not a discretionary decision and cannot be considered unjustified.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nitin W. Sambre dismissed a writ petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order upholding Disciplinary Authority's decision to not grant the petitioner back wages and allowances for the period of his suspension.
Case Title: Ajabrao Rambhau Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court granted protection to a retired Junior Assistant (Class II officer) against recovery of excess salary and benefits erroneously paid to him by the Water Resources Department of the Government of Maharashtra during his service.
"We have two very strong reasons in the present case for arriving at a conclusion that the recovery would be arbitrary, viz. unduly long period of 23 years of recovery and retirement of the petitioner", the court held.
Case Title: Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Sanghatana Maharashtra Rajya v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court recently directed the state government to extend the pay scale of watchmen in government Ashram Schools to temporary watchmen in private aided Ashram Schools, relying on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The court held that the petitioners are required to be granted minimum pay in the pay scale admissible for the post of Watchmen/security guards/multitasking staff engaged in the government ashram schools.
Case Title: Dr. Prakash Borulkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
The Bombay High Court granted relief to a retired medical officer of Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) whose pension and gratuity was reduced by the local body after a government clarification said only public health department doctors were to be given extension of two years in service beyond the date of retirement. The court directed the TMC to refund any amount recovered from the petitioner. The court also restrained the TMC from recovering any further amount from the petitioner's pension.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the decision in a writ petition challenging reduction in pension and gratuity and recovery of excess payment from his retiral benefits.
Case Title: All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India & Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
The Bombay High Court held that if the Government declines reference of a dispute to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, it must do so based on a final, and not prima facie satisfaction that no industrial dispute arises in the case.
The court held that the decision of the Central Government not to refer a dispute between Air India employees and Air India Ltd. regarding vacation of their allotted residences to the Tribunal was patently illegal and without application of mind as it not recorded r.
The court noted that the government held the demands of the joint committee to be 'extraneous' and declined to refer the dispute to the tribunal without giving the reasoning behind this conclusion.
Case Title: Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 403
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held that a government servant turning hostile in a criminal trial may be unethical, but it does not amount to misconduct capable of being punished.
"Not standing by the statement given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. during his testimony during trial could possibly be construed as an unethical act not expected of an ideal government servant .... The same, however, would not amount to misconduct capable of being subjected to punishment for ensuring discipline amongst the organization," said the court.
A division bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Sandeep V. Marne further observed that the disciplinary authority is not an expert to gauge the factors leading to hostility of the witness and perjury can only be established by the Sessions Court and not in a disciplinary inquiry.
The court clarified that appointing authority can proceed against the employee departmentally for turning hostile in a criminal trial based on conviction under Section 191 IPC, without conducting any departmental inquiry.
Case Title: Anil Kisanrao Patil (Died) Through legal heirs v. Zilla Parishad Hingoli
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 413
The Bombay High Court directed Hingoli Zilla Parishad to grant all pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of a deceased clerk even though the case challenging his dismissal was pending in the Labour Court.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad Bench also granted continuity in service to the petitioner during the period between his dismissal and reinstatement to service.
The clerk was dismissed from service over 10 years ago and was fighting the dispute for over 8 years. He died while his writ petition was pending in the High Court.
Case Title: All India Reporter Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 448
The Bombay High Court held that the state government cannot delegate its power to refer a question related to amount due to any newspaper employee to the Labour Court under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions Of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act).
Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice M. W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench in a writ petition filed by law journal All India Reporter struck down a notification of the state government delegating the power to make reference to the Labour Court to the Additional Commissioner of Labour.
Case Title: Amarnath Madhukar Havshett v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors..
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 478
The Bombay High Court has restrained the Maharashtra Public Services Commission (MPSC) from issuing appointment letters for engineers under the reserved Economically Weaker Section Category (EWS) till the issue of diverting SEBC candidates to EWS is settled.
The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja noted that a petition challenging MPSC's decision to consider candidates from the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) for EWS posts after the SEBC Act was struck down by the Supreme Court is pending final hearing.
Therefore, the court stayed the appointment process to 111 EWS posts and directed the MAT to dispose of the matter by January 2023.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors.. v. Smt. ABC and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
The Bombay High Court set aside Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) direction to reinstate a craft instructor at ITI Vikramgad observing that her resignation was voluntary and there was no relation between the resignation and the alleged sexual harassment she faced from the principal.
The division bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the principal of the institute had been transferred from Vikramgad almost a year before her resignation.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Arya Pujari
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 487
The Bombay High Court was hearing state's plea against Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's direction to include transgender persons in recruitment for all posts of the Home Department.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja directed the state to frame rules according to the Central Government's Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 and complete the physical tests of all candidates except transgender candidates within two and a half months, i.e., by February 28, 2023. Physical examination of transgender candidates will be done in the last fortnight, said the court. Till the rules are framed and the physical tests are conducted, the state shall not proceed with the written tests for all candidates, the court held.
Case Title: Shri Aloke Singh & Ors v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the administration of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) for its decision to outsource the services rendered by a batch of contractual employees who had been working as gardeners since 2013 to a government contractor. The Court set aside the resolution dated January 3, 2022, which contained such a direction and further ordered that under no circumstances can the contractual employees be pushed to a Government contractor from the aegis of the ISI administration. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay minced no words in disapproving of the practice of governmental interference in the functioning of autonomous institutions. Directing the ISI administration to consider giving permanent employee status to the petitioners, the Court further observed, "I wholly set aside and quash the resolution taken in the meeting dated 03.01.2022 that ISI should procure the cooking and gardening services by following the due procedure on GeM. In no circumstances petitioners can be pushed to a Government contractor from the fold of ISI. On the contrary, ISI should consider with sincerity about giving permanent employee status to the petitioners as artificial breaks were given in their contractual periods from 2013 to 2021."
Case Title: Durgabala Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 9
The Calcutta High Court observed in a case that the daughter-in-law is bound by the undertaking given while obtaining a compassionate appointment to maintain and extend medical assistance to the mother-in-law. The Court was adjudicating upon a plea moved by an 80 years old widow (appellant) whose husband had passed away a long time back. Her son Bajadulal Mandal who was working as a Primary School Teacher had also unfortunately passed away on October 14, 2014. Thereafter, the daughter-in-law (respondent no.9) had applied for a compassionate appointment in the school and had also given an undertaking dated July 25, 2016, stating that she will bear the responsibility of maintaining and providing medical assistance to the appellant in the future. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed, "Once the respondent no. 9 had obtained the compassionate appointment by giving an undertaking as above to maintain and extend medical assistance to the appellant, then she is bound by that."
Case Title: Union Of India and Others v. Ratna Sarkar
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 31
The Calcutta High Court observed that the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a widowed daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of her father/mother. The Court held that a daughter who became widowed after the demise after her father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. The issue in consideration before a Bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Rabindranath Samanta was whether a daughter of a pensioner who was married, but became widowed after the death of the pensioner is entitled to family pension. Answering in the negative, the Court observed, "As the legislative intent is demonstrated, the scheme of family pension never included a daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of the pensioner..A daughter who became widowed after the demise after her father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. In the absence of any legislation in this regard, the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a daughter of a family pensioner who was married at the time of the death of her father/mother. It will be unwise on the part of this Court to exercise its extraordinary or discretionary power to come to any inference contrary to the policy decision of the Government."
Case Title: Tania Mukherjee & Ors v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 36
The Calcutta High Court observed that service in Specialized Units would not amount to serving in "remote and/or difficult areas" for the purpose of qualifying for the stipulated 40% in-service quota in Post Graduate Medical counselling for seats in Government/private colleges in West Bengal. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a plea moved by 53 graduate doctors who are serving as Medical Officers in different hospitals in the State and had contended that they should be eligible for availing the 40% in-service quota for presently serving in Specialized Units. "This Court recognizes the commitment shown by the in-service doctors who render 24x7 service in these Specialized Units. However, to include service in such Specialized Units within the definition of "rural and/or difficult areas" would amount to making in-roads into the policy frame-work of the State Government which a Writ Court should normally hesitate to do unless compelling reasons exist. A policy decision is not a perpetual no-go area and a Writ Court can certainly interfere in fit cases including where the policy is not backed by legislative competence or where there is an excessive delegation of essential legislative functions or an infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India", the Court observed.
Case Title: Anindita Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 51
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a plea seeking compassionate appointment by observing that the mother of the petitioner is a teacher of a school and thus there is no immediate crisis faced by the family members. The petitioner one Anindita Mandal had sought compassionate appointment on the ground that her father had passed away when she was ten years old. The mother of the petitioner is working as a teacher in a school. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay observed, "The compassionate appointment is given to tie over immediate crisis faced by the family members for untimely death of the bread earner. It is not a case where the family is facing crisis to arrange even two square meals as the mother of the petitioner is working". The Court ruled that the instant case would not come within the the policy of the State for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 52
The Calcutta High Court ordered the cancellation of appointment of six assistant teachers in the Murshidabad district after noting that they had been illegally appointed pursuant to the illegal recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Court was adjudicating upon a plea alleging illegal appointments pertaining to the West Bengal State Level Selection Test (SLST) for Class 9 and Class 10 mathematics teachers. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay observed that the illegally recruited candidates do not have any 'legal right' to o work as assistant teachers in the schools pursuant to the letter written by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad dated February 8, 2021 to the President of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Furthermore, the Court noted that the WBSCC had stated that the illegally recruited candidates had been recommended by the Commission due to a 'mistake'. Opining that this was a 'deliberate illegal action' on the part of the Commission and not a mistake, the Court further remarked, "Though the School Service Commission has taken shelter under the expression 'mistake', this court wholly disbelieves such shroud of the Commission now placed on its face. This cannot be a mistake. These are deliberate illegal action otherwise the wait-listed candidates in serial nos. 229, 242, 250, 265, 289 and 302 could not have been recommended selectively by the Commission."
Case Title: Dr. Kausik Paul v. Seacom Skills University and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 93
The Calcutta High Court observed that the perceived unfairness of a 'hire and fire policy' or a clause of summary dismissal is substantially diluted if an employee is given sufficient opportunity to respond to the charges levelled. Opining that Courts intervene only if the principles of natural justice is found to have been violated, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed, "The perceived unfairness of a "hire and fire" policy or a clause of summary dismissal is substantially diluted where sufficient notice is given to the employee to respond to the charges made against the employee. Courts usually intervene and rectify a situation where a clear breach of the rules of natural justice is established on fact or where the notice of termination is opaque and indecipherable in failing to disclose reasons for the sudden dismissal." The Court further opined that in several sectors, such conditions of summary dismissal may be necessary for maintaining disciplinary standards and also for ensuring the competence levels of employees. "The words "hire and fire" carry a sense of an inherent and abrupt injustice. The underlying imputation is one of summary dismissal without an opportunity of a meaningful say in the decision of dismissal. There are also several sectors where the persons are employed under the condition of a summary dismissal on the happening of certain events. In other spheres, these conditions may be seen as necessary for maintaining disciplinary standards and the competence levels of employees", the Court opined further.
Case Title: Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Md. Abdul Gani Ansari and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 97
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a Single Judge's order directing former West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) advisor S.P. Sinha to furnish details about his properties to the Court while adjudicating upon a plea pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the WBSSC. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay in the impugned order had directed S.P. Sinha, the Advisor of the School Service Commission and the Convenor of the Five-Member Committee constituted by the Education Department to disclose in an affidavit details about his assets after suspecting corruption during the recruitment of staff in different schools by the SSC in recent years. A Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta ordered, "Taking into account the thought process behind the direction passed upon the appellant to file affidavit of assets, we do not find any element warranting interference at this stage. However, we make it clear that such affidavit of assets shall remain in a sealed cover and shall not be divulged or circulated to the litigating parties or the Counsels and shall be appropriately dealt with at the time of final decision to be taken on the issues involved therein." The time for filing such an affidavit was also extended by 5 days.
Case Title: Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal v. Visva-Bharati & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 100
The Calcutta High Court set aside a showcase notice and the subsequent suspension of a Visva Bharati University assistant professor after observing that the Registrar (Acting) did not have the power to initiate disciplinary action against the professor. The Visva Bharati authorities had on February 24, 2021, showcaused Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal, assistant professor of Rabindra dance and drama at the varsity's Sangeet Bhavana, asking him to clarify why action would not be taken against him for negligence in duty and misconduct. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya directed, "This Court is of the view that since the Registrar (Acting) did not have the power to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, who is an Adhyapaka of the University, the defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and nullifies all subsequent steps taken thereafter. The Charge-sheet and the order of suspension are hence without authority and should be quashed on that basis. In other words, to quote the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, if the foundation of the action is removed, the superstructure must fall".
Case Title: Snigdha Datta (Basu) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
The Calcutta High Court allowed a government school teacher to seek a transfer to a school nearer to her residence after taking into account the report filed by a Medical Board which had advised her to avoid long journeys owing to her health condition. Opining that the school teacher cannot be made to risk her life, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay underscored, "..it is observed that a lady teacher with specific advice of the doctors of a Medical Board of a Government Hospital to avoid journey, cannot be compelled to attend the school which is at a distance of 142 kilometers. To and fro journey is 284 kilometers. Even if the petitioner arranges an accommodation nearer to the school, it cannot be said that she will never come to her in-laws' house or her father's residence from the rented house in school area. At the same time going against the advice of the doctors of the Medical Board means taking risk of her life." Opining that her service period being less than 5 years cannot stand as an impediment in the way of her transfer, the Court observed, "In such a situation when the Medical Board in their report dated 25.08.2021 advised her to avoid journey, it is immaterial whether the petitioner is short of some months service from five years as on date. The petitioner has not been transferred till date and that is why I am considering the present tenure of her service, it is slightly below five years. However, when advise is to avoid journey after medical test by not an individual doctor but a Medical Board the service period cannot stand in the way for transfer."
Case Title: Nur Afsar Mandal v. Visva Bharati and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
The Calcutta High Court set aside an order passed by the Registrar (Acting) of Visva-Bharati University discontinuing the services of a casual labourer on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya ordered, "The facts in the present case do not justify the impugned action. It is vigilante-justice without the factual bulwark to support it. This Court, being equally in the dark (as the petitioner) on the material forming the basis of the charge and the perceived exigency, is therefore unable to accept that the University had good grounds to summarily discontinue the services of the petitioner." Highlighting the need to preserve the principles of natural justice in order to protect constitutional ethos, the Court underscored, "Fair play in action is the law's most recognizable face, it evens the scales of injustice and strengthens its moral core. Subverting the rules of natural justice unsettles the very bedrock on which laws are built and shakes the constitutional foundation of equal protection of the laws. Attractive as it may sound, rough and ready justice serves only those who mete it out and not the person at the receiving end. Fair play is all about points and counter-points between two opposing parties and not a volley of unidirectional projectiles, ricocheting and bouncing in the dark echo- chamber of procedure."
Case Title: Anita Nigam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 173
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on Convent of Our Lady Providence Girls' High School in Kolkata for unlawfully terminating the service of an Assistant Teacher in violation of the order of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay was adjudicating upon a plea moved by the petitioner seeking the setting aside of an order terminating her service and quashing of disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. "From the action of the school it is found that the school does not care the direction of the court for exchange of affidavits and a final hearing or the decision of the Board, which is a statutory authority, in respect of suspension of the petitioner and in respect of the observation of the Board as to gross violation of notification dated 8th March, 2018, i.e., the existing Rules. The school does not care this court's order dated 01.04.2022, does not care the order of the Board dated 20.02.2017 and does not care the Board's letter dated 29.04.2019", the Court observed. Opining further that the school had 'overreached the Court' by issuing a termination order despite the matter being sub-judice, the Court underscored, "When the matter was kept pending with direction of this court for filing affidavits, the order passed by the school for termination of the petitioner during the pendency of the matter, i.e., in a sub-judice matter, in my view, is clearly an act of overreaching the court. The school never approached the court before passing such termination order, which judicial decorum and discipline demands. Ignoring the court is unforgivable. The school is of this habit, as will appear from the facts stated above, of ignoring the statutory authority, i.e., the Board."
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Consideration of State Government Employee
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 192
In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court upheld an order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and accordingly directed the State government to release the Dearness Allowance and Arrear Dearness Allowance to its employees as per the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009 ( ROPA Rules, 2009) within a period of 3 months. A Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta ordered, "The petitioners are directed to release the Dearness Allowance and Arrear Dearness Allowance to its employees at the rate to be calculated on the basis of All India Consumer Price Index average 536(1982=100) commensurate with their pay as per the ROPA Rules, 2009 as directed by the Tribunal within three months from date." Opining further that the legal right to get Dearness Allowance as a way to sustain livelihood has been elevated as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed, "What we feel, apart from acquiring the enforceable legal right to get Dearness Allowance using the methodology of All India Consumer Price Index, such right of the employees to sustain their livelihood with human dignity has been fructified or elevated as fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Such right available to Government Employees who are the main workforce behind the functioning of a Government in right direction cannot be denied by the State. As observed by the Pay Commission, we are of the same view that to pay respect to the statutory rights of the Government Employees to get D.A Allowances at the rate as above, the Government must generate all its resources."
Case Title: Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 196
The Calcutta High Court has ordered that the daughter of West Bengal minister of state for school education Paresh Chandra Adhikari should not be allowed to enter the concerned school premises until further orders and must also deposit the total salary received so far during her tenure as an assistant school teacher with the Registrar General of the High Court. The directions were issued while adjudicating upon a plea filed by an aggrieved candidate who had alleged that she had been deprived of the job despite having secured higher marks than the Minister's daughter in the recruitment examination. Coming down heavily on such an illegal appointment, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay ordered that the Minister's daughter namely Ankita Adhikari shall not be allowed to be treated as a teacher recommended by the West Bengal School Service Commission (SCC) and appointed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education until further orders passed by the Court. The Court further underscored that Adhikari or any other person on her behalf shall not be allowed to enter the concerned school premises and also restrained Adhikari from introducing herself as a teacher of the school recommended by the Commission until further orders. "If any such report comes to this Court that she has introduced herself as a teacher of the school, the Court will take appropriate steps against her", the Court warned further. Furthermore, the Court ordered Adhikari to deposit the total salary received by her till date during her tenure with the Registrar General of the High Court in two instalments. The first instalment was ordered to be paid by June 7, 2022 and the second instalment was ordered to be paid by July 7, 2022.
Case Title: Pranesh Kumar Kar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
The Calcutta High Court directed the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest for delayed payment of gratuity and arrear pension amount to an Assistant Teacher, after opining that it is a valuable right of a retired employee. Justice Amrita Sinha observed, "An employee has a statutory right to receive gratuity and pension upon retirement. If payment of such gratuity and pension is delayed the retired employee is surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed payment." The Court also remarked that pension and gratuity are welfare provisions aimed at maintaining the life of a retired employee and his/her dependents and that it is compensatory in nature.
Case Title: Goutam Saren v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the Central Administrative Tribunal for failing to dispose of a matter within a month despite its earlier order, by labelling it to be a 'sordid state of affairs'. A Bench comprising Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) and Justice Harish Tandon underscored, "It is the sordid state of affairs that despite all requests having been made to the officers manning the tribunal to dispose of the matter within a month from the date of the communication of this order, no substantial progress could be seen therefrom." Opining that the time limit set forth is mandatory, the Court further observed, "The time limit set forth hereinabove, is peremptory and mandatory. If necessary, the tribunal shall fix the date on day to day basis in order to adhere to the time fixed by this Court in the impugned order."
Case Title: Anup Gupta v. State of West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
The Calcutta High Court while adjudicating upon a plea alleging illegal appointment of assistant teachers for Class 9 and Class 10 in State-run schools, directed West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to set aside the appointment of a mathematics teacher. In the instant case, one Siddique Gazi was working as a mathematics teacher at Soluadanga High School in Murshidabad since February 2021. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha took on record the report filed by Ashok Kumar Saha, Assistant Secretary, West Bengal Central School Service Commission wherein the Commission had admitted that the appointment of Gazi as Assistant Teacher in the subject of Mathematics in OBC for Class IX & X under the State Level Selection Test, 2016 has been a mistake. Directing the Board of Secondary Education to immediately cancel his appointment, the Court underscored, "In that view of the matter, appointment of Siddik Gazi as Assistant Teacher by the Board of Secondary Education shall stand quashed and set aside. The Board shall take immediate consequential steps. An illegal appointment cannot confer any right on an appointee." The Court stated that it will consider on June 8 whether the said appointment was obtained by fraud or other malpractice. It further directed that no arrears whatsoever in any form shall be paid to the illegal appointee in the meantime.
Case Title: Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
The Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into recruitment of teachers in government-aided primary schools by the State's primary education board. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay directed the CBI to file an FIR to initiate an investigation into alleged illegal recruitment of teachers by the board based on the teachers' eligibility test in 2014. Furthermore, the primary education board secretary Ratna Chakraborti Bagchi and president Manik Bhattacharya were also ordered to appear before the CBI at its office later by 5pm on Monday. "In view of the illegality committed in respect of the second panel (termed as Additional Panel, by the Secretary of the Board), which is wholly illegal and giving illegal appointment to 269 candidates by a queer method unknown to law, I direct the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI', for short) to start investigation by registering a case immediately against the Board and start interrogating the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, and the Secretary of the said Board Dr. Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi, which shall start today itself. I direct the petitioners to add Dr. Manik Bhattacharya, the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education and Dr. Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi, the Secretary of the said Board as party respondents and they are to go to the CBI office at Nizam Palace by 5:30 p.m. today to face interrogation", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Pranati Aguan v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
The Calcutta High Court observed that the right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution does not mean giving equal treatment or equal protection of the law to persons who are unequals and that its violation would entail giving iniquitous treatment to persons falling within the same bracket despite their homogeneous characteristics. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a plea seeking cancellation of amendments made to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for appointment to the Posts of Headmaster/Headmistress in Secondary or Higher Secondary and Junior High Schools) Rules, 2016 as notified on March 24, 2017 and all subsequent Notifications issued thereafter to the extent of imposing enhanced qualifications for selection of Headmasters/Headmistresses in Secondary, Higher Secondary and Junior High Schools. Enumerating further upon what constitutes 'reasonable classification' under Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court underscored, "The safeguard in Article 14 of the Constitution is to prevent discriminatory treatment of persons who claim to be equals; the right does not mean giving equal treatment or equal protection of the law to persons who are unequals and would hence require differential treatment for preserving their unique and individual characteristics. The image which comes to mind is of 3 persons of unequal height being given 3 ladders to see beyond a wall; the idea is not to give 3 equal-sized ladders to the 3 persons but giving the tallest ladder to the shortest person and the shortest ladder to the tallest person so that all 3 can look beyond the wall (wishfully at a brighter and more equal future)."
Case Title: Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
The Calcutta High Court removed Trinamool MLA Manik Bhattacharya from the post of Chairman of the Board of Primary Education with immediate effect in connection with alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers in state government-sponsored and aided primary schools. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had earlier ordered a court-monitored probe by a special investigation team of the CBI into the alleged illegal appointments of at least 269 primary teachers. The Court further ordered that Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi, the Secretary of the Board, would remain in charge till a new appointment is made to the Chairman of the Board. Furthermore, Bhattacharya was instructed to appear in person before the Court by 2pm on Tuesday for further interrogation. "..this court removes Mr. Manik Bhattacharya from the post of President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education forthwith and I direct the Government to appoint any other fit person as President of the Board and till the new President is appointed, the Secretary of the Board namely, Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi will perform the function of the President of the Board", the Court ordered.
Case Title: DILIP KUMAR GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 273
In a writ petition assailing an order declining higher pay scale to the petitioner, the Calcutta High Court held that salary increment cannot be claimed when duties are performed without proper compliance of the relevant mandatory statutory provisions. The Court noted that all the teachers of secondary schools who had improved or would improve their qualifications or who were appointed with higher qualification in the subject or group relevant to their teaching/appointment should get higher scale of pay, apropos to their qualifications. The Court declared that this was not a case of Article 14, as the case was of non-compliance of the relevant mandatory statutory provisions, which were crucial for the case of the petitioner. Finding that the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity, wither procedural or legal, the Court dismissed the petition.
89. Chairman Of District Primary School Council Cannot Order Transfer Of Teachers: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Dipika Bala Biswas Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 286
In an intra-court appeal whereas a Single Judge refused to interfere with the order of transfer issued against the appellant by the Chairman, North 24 Parganas District Primary School Council, the Calcutta High Court noted that the Chairman did not have the authority or jurisdiction to issue the impugned transfer order to the appellant Assistant Teacher of a Primary School. On 7th October, 2021 the appellant was transferred being aggrieved to which the appellant had preferred a Writ Application before a Single Judge of Calcutta High Court. The single judge, while staying the transfer asked the DPSC North 24 Parganas to file report specifying the reasons of such transfer. After considering the said report the single judge set aside the order of transfer while relying on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Case Title: Kunjumole v. The Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 301
The Calcutta High Court has underscored that dismissal or removal or reduction in the rank of a person employed in a civil capacity under the Union or State must not be done without following due process and in violation of the principles of natural justice. A Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee thus proceeded to quash the impugned orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority and also directed the respondent authorities to release pensionary and other retirement benefits to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks.
Case Title: Pijus Patra v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 367
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that in matters pertaining to public employment, fair selection of employees is essential. The Court further held that in such matters, biased appointments made on political consideration could not be given a seal of approval. The Court was dealing with a PIL challenging an executive order of November 2021 providing for the constitution of Selection Committees for selection and appointment of contractual employees under the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal across various districts and health districts of the State. The basis of the PIL's challenge was that such Selection Committees were chaired by local political leaders, Ministers and MLAs of the ruling political dispensation.
Case Title: SHRI FAJALUR RAHAMAN v. I.P.G.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. (W.P.(C) 890/2020) and B S PURIA v. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. & ANR. (W.P.(C) 3495/2021)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 39
The Delhi High Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority, though not competent to impose major penalties of compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal, can initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of the same.
It noted that there is nothing to suggest that the Appointing Authority alone would be the Competent Authority to institute the disciplinary / major penalty proceedings.
The Court indicated that the Director (Technical), being the "Officer (Concerned)" of the Petitioners, designated with issuing major and minor penalties per the DOP, was eligible to issue charge sheet, notwithstanding him not being the Appointing Authority.
Case Title: AASHIMA GOYAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 46
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) is entitled to seek information from credible sources before concluding, as to whether or not the concerned candidate for civil services has correctly claimed reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh was dealing with a petition filed by one Aashima Goyal challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal to challenge the decision of DoPT whereby her candidature for Civil Services Examination, 2019 was cancelled.
According to the petitioner, she became aware of her candidature being cancelled only when she received information in December 2020 in response to her RTI application.
Case Title: Avin Dalal v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 15179/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi High Court recently held that merely because the Petitioner was not granted 15 days' gap between his Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination for recruitment in the Police force, it cannot be said that there was any fault in the procedure adopted.
The Petitioner, a CAPF aspirant, had claimed that even though candidates are granted 15 days period to the candidate to make an appeal before the Review Medical Board, he was forced to submit his appeal on the very same day on which the DME was conducted.
As a consequence, the petitioner could not bring his weight within the permissible limit, thereby being denied an opportunity to be selected.
Title: KAMLESH KUMAR JHA v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL BORDER ROADS AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 91
The Delhi High Court has held that an employee of the Border Roads Organisation has no fundamental right to claim a deputation to any other Organisation or Department like National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
A bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that since an employee of Border Roads Organisation has to work primarily in the said Organisation, he has only a right of fair consideration in accordance with the policy and needs of the organisation.
The Court dismissed a plea filed by one Kamlesh Kumar Jha challenging the rejection letter dated and show cause notice thereby seeking directions to the Border Roads Organisation to allow the his application for deputation to the NHAI on the ground of parity.
Title: M/S WEARWELL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. MOHD. NIZAM
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 95
The Delhi High Court has observed that settlements entered into in industrial disputes are legal and valid even though provisions similar to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC do not exist in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that settlements can be entered into between Management and Workman even outside the court or conciliation proceedings as is clear from sec. 18(1) Industrial Disputes Act.
"Such settlements would be valid and legal. Upon a settlement being entered into, parties may place the same before the forum concerned and the same can be recorded, upon the Court being satisfied that the terms are legal, just and fair. A settlement under Section 18(1) would be binding on the parties. The usual procedure for recording a settlement would be that parties would file an application and appear before the court and confirm the settlement," the Court said.
Case Title: JAHAN SINGH v. TRIBAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD TRIFED AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 110
Dismissing a petition filed by an Accountant challenging his dismissal from service on being convicted in a criminal case, the Delhi High has observed that reinstatement in public service cannot flow as a matter of right where the acquittal of such person is not an honourable acquittal.
The petitioner who was working at the post of Accountant Grade I had approached the Court challenging the order dated March 19, 2013 whereby he was dismissed from service under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 based upon his conviction under sec. 7 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that the petitioner tried to extract a bribe for processing the release of an amount outstanding to a vendor.
The High Court had then vide order dated May 4, 2020 acquitted and exonerated the petitioner from all charges.
Case Title: AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Emphasising that an employee in a transferable job has no vested right to remain posted at one place, the Delhi High Court has said that Courts should not readily interfere with the transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that if the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government or its subordinate Authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to the public interest.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking to set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
Case Title: UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241
The Delhi High Court has observed that any employer can forfeit the gratuity of an employee if the employee is terminated for any act or omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to the property belonging to the employer.
Justice Pratibha M Singh however added that such forfeiture can only be to the extent of the damage or loss caused, and not beyond that.
The Court was dealing with two petitions pertaining to disputes between employee and Union Bank of India. In one of the petitions, a chargesheet was issued against the employee alleging that loans were issued by him accommodating certain parties which caused losses to the Bank.
In another matter, chargesheet was issued against the employee alleging that he was involved in lending loans in blatant violation of lending norms without completing the requisite formalities, sanctioning higher amounts of loans to borrowers whose earlier loans were either NPA or overdue, which allegedly caused losses to the Bank.
Thus, the two aspects to be considered in the cases by Court was, First, whether forfeiture of gratuity is permissible and, if so, in what manner is it to be effected and Secondly, whether long delay in approaching to Controlling Authority can result in rejection of the claim for gratuity.
Title: MRS OMITA MAGO & ORS. v. AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 318
The Delhi High Court has observed that the employees of an unaided private school are entitled to the benefits as being given to the employees of the government run schools.
Justice V Kameswar Rao thus granted relief to the petitioners who were working as Teachers including pre-primary, Librarian, TGT and PGT in city's Ahlcon Public School.
The Court allowed the plea which had sought directions on the school to pay to petitioners the amounts wrongfully deducted from their salaries from the month of June 2020 and onwards till date. The plea also sought directions on the school to fix their pay terms of the 7th central pay commission along with allowances and other benefits including arrears of salaries.