- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Service Matters: Compilation Of...
Service Matters: Compilation Of High Court Judgments In 2022 [Part III]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
13 Jan 2023 10:48 AM IST
![Service Matters: Compilation Of High Court Judgments In 2022 [Part III]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2023/01/13/750x450_453644-service-matters-compilation-of-high-court-judgments-in-2022.webp "Service Matters: Compilation Of High Court Judgments In 2022 [Part III]")
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 third of four parts of this Digest.Part IPart II201. In Absence Of Criteria To Break A Tie, Selection Committee May Adopt Its Own Yardstick In Consonance With Article 14: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Suhail Ahmad...
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 third of four parts of this Digest.
201. In Absence Of Criteria To Break A Tie, Selection Committee May Adopt Its Own Yardstick In Consonance With Article 14: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Suhail Ahmad Wani V/s SKIMS Medical College Hospital and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 71
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that in cases of recruitment or drawing of seniority lists where there is neither any statutory prescription, nor any executive instructions laying down any criteria or guidelines to be followed to break the tie, the only course that is left with a Court adjudicating such matter is to look to the fairness and rationality of the selection process as also the criteria that ought to have been possibly applied to break the tie.
The bench also observed that preferring a candidate having better merit in the academics but not being older in age cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be unfair, irrational or arbitrary.
202. Temporary Employees Also Protected Under Article 311 Of Constitution, Cannot Be Terminated Without Conducting Proper Enquiry: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs Union Of India
Citatition: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 75
Case Title : State of J&K Vs Bhumesh Sharma.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 189
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the power to compulsorily retire a government servant in terms of service rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest. Such an order cannot be passed merely on the recommendation of the committee devoid of departmental inquiry and sufficient material to form bona fide opinion by the competent authority, it added.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today ruled that a temporary employee also stands protected under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and cannot be terminated without conducting proper enquiry.
204. No Recovery Can Be Made From Pension If Employee's Promotion Was Not Based On Any Misrepresentation: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Sonam Dolma Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 84
A division bench of J&K&L High Court ruled that in absence of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner with regard to factum of seeking her promotion, no recovery, whatsoever, can be made from her retirement benefit or for that matter her promotion cannot be withdrawn
205. Years Of Service Alone Does Not Entitle A Daily Wager To Regularization, Eligibility To The Post Paramount Consideration: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: State of J&K Vs Mushtaq Ahmad Naik & Ors.
Citation 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 101
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that the completion of seven years of continuous service alone would not entitle a daily wager for regularization, unless other eligibility conditions were fulfilled.
"A Daily Rated Worker would become eligible for regularization on fulfilment of all the conditions as contained in Rule 4 of the provisions of SRO 64. Completion of seven years of continuous period of daily wage service alone thus would not entitle a daily wager for regularization unless such daily wager fulfills other eligibility conditions," the bench underscored.
206. Promotion Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Criminal Proceedings Are Pending Against The Employee: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Tanveer Ahmad Khan Vs JK BOSE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 108
The bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that promotion cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee and to deny such benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee
207. High Court Deprecates Practice Of Deputing "Outsiders" In J&K State Road Transport Corporation Instead Of Promoting Existing Eligible Employees
Case Title: Managing Director J&K SRTC Vs Syed Arshad Tramboo & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 117
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that Rules nowhere provide that the outsiders can be brought in by way of "deputation" infringing fundamental right of persons, who are born on the establishment of the Corporation and have preferential right of being considered for promotion.
"To bring the officers from outside by way of deputation to the Corporation can be only in the eventuality if no suitable person is found eligible in the Corporation after assessing their merit, eligibility and suitability", Justice Nargal observed.
208. Pensionary Benefits | Employee Who Is Removed From Service For Misconduct Not At Par With Those Who Retire On Superannuation: J&K&L High Court
Case Title:vBashir Ahmad Wani v J&K Grameen Bank and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 131
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that an employee who is removed from service for misconduct is not at par with those who retire on superannuation.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sarngal & Ors Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 145
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that training can act as a distinguishing factor to enable Govt to frame a separate seniority list in the same Department and the Government therefore is well within its rights to frame such rule/principle provided that such principle/rule is reasonable, fair and non-discriminatory.
Case Title: UT of J&K Vs Hilal Ahmad Rather
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 163
The High Court of J&K and Ladakh held that suspension of an employee over alleged misconduct is not a punishment but, if the suspension is prolonged for more than 4 years, then it amounts to punishment, as it has very strong stigmatic social connotations.
The court observed that from the perusal of the order of suspension, it was clear that the inquiry was required to be completed within 15 days, "which itself proves beyond any shadow doubt that the State was conscious of the seriousness and urgency involved in the matter, yet they slept over the matter for four long years to initiate an inquiry by way of issuing chargesheet to the delinquent".
Case Title: Prem Nath & Ors Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 166
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that mere reinstatement into service without a clean chit in departmental inquiry is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings emanating from the set of allegations.
Case Title :Bashir Ahmed Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 174
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the nature of service of a police official cannot be equated with the nature of any other service and a person who has been convicted of a criminal charge is definitely not fit to serve as police official/officer.
"Even otherwise, once the petitioner was convicted of a criminal charge, even though, he was granted benefit of probation, it was open to the respondents to refuse to take him back in service, because the service of police department is not like service of any other department. A person, who has been convicted of a criminal charge is definitely not fit to serve as police official/officer not even as an SPO". Justice Sanjay Dhar observed.
Case Title : Sajad Tariq and Ors Vs Com Secy Youth Service and Sports.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 181
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that there is a sound logic predicated in the interest of the candidates figuring in the waiting list and the intention behind is not to hold further selection for the post already advertised and to save the public exchequer from the unnecessary expenditure.
"The respondents cannot frustrate the intention behind and purpose of preparation of select list/ waiting list. It is not a case where the respondents have stopped at framing the wait list saying that it has been framed inadvertently and shall be deemed to have been cancelled, they have gone beyond and made it effective and issued the orders of engagement also", the bench added.
Case Title : State of J&K Vs Bhumesh Sharma.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 189
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the power to compulsorily retire a government servant in terms of service rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest. Such an order cannot be passed merely on the recommendation of the committee devoid of departmental inquiry and sufficient material to form bona fide opinion by the competent authority, it added.
Case Title : Raheela Nazir Vs J&K EDI
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 198
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an order of appointment with a stipulation that the services are terminable by one month's notice of either side loses its significance when it was not resorted to during the initial period of contract.
216. Employee's Performance Is "Personal Information" Exempted U/S 8(1)(j) RTI Act: J&K&L High Court
Case Title : Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors Vs Central Information Commission
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 207
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Saturday reiterated that the "performance of an employee or an officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and falls within the meaning of personal information."
Normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest," the court said, adding, "On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual."
217. J&K Road Transport Corporation Employees Not Entitled To Pensionary Benefits: High Court
Case Title : UT of J&K & Ors V/s All J&K Workers Union SRTC and another J&K Road Transport Employees Association & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 216
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declined pensionary benefits to the retired employees of J&K State Road Transport Corporation (JKSRTC) while holding that the employees appointed by the Corporation were not entitled to the same at par with the government employees.
Case Title : Showkat Ahmad Najar & Ors Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 222
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the security of work should, as far as possible, be assured to the employee so that he may contribute the maximum efforts for the development.
Case Title : Mtr Mehmooda Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 234
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that if an appointment is non-est in the eyes of law or is based upon forgery and fraud, it is not necessary for the employer to hold an enquiry before terminating the services of such an employee.
Case Title : Murad Ali Sajan & Ors Vs UT of J&K.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 238
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High reiterated that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee; such position can be filled only by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
Case Title : Vinkal Sharma & Ors Vs UT of J&K and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 240
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Thursday quashed the ongoing recruitment process for Junior Engineer-civil (Jal Shakti Department) and Sub Inspector (Home Department) and directed the UT Government to constitute a high level Committee headed by not less than a retired High Court Judge to enquire into the conduct of Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board.
Case Title : Masrat Yousuf Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 244
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that where a person is engaged in a statutory corporation on the basis of a special contract, Article 311 has no application. The provision relates to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.
"The engagement of the petitioner seemingly is an ordinary case of a service contract terminable at any time under the terms provided therein the engagement order. Thus, the case setup by the petitioner and the contention of the counsel for the petitioner urged in this regard in general and the applicability of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution in particular therefore, is not entertainable in law", Justice Javed Iqbal Wani held.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors v. the State of Jharkhand and Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
Quashing a blanket order issued by the State against promotion of its employees, the Jharkhand High Court rebuked the State for its discriminatory and callous approach in employing the pick and choose method.
Directing the State to consider the petitioners for promotion forthwith, Justice S.N. Pathak observed,
"The discriminatory and callous approach of the State is not praiseworthy rather it is not accepted in a welfare State. Pick and choose methods adopted by the State is hereby deprecated. On several occasions these cases were adjourned on the ground that the State is going to withdraw blanket order of stay but even after granting several adjournment, no such affidavit was filed which itself is clear and speaks volume about action of the State."
Case Title: Rita Devi & Ors v. Ms. Sima Devi & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 11
The Jharkhand High Court has held that wages under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 include privileges or benefits that can be measured in terms of money, such as food allowance, etc.
Justice Gautam Choudhary noted,"From the above definition of wages, it is manifest wages includes any privilege or benefits which is capable of being estimated in money. It has come in evidence that Rs.80/ per-month was paid to the employee apart from monthly salary of Rs.3,500/-."
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 13
The Jharkhand High Court has recently reiterated that the writ court does not sit in appeal against the orders passed in departmental proceedings, particularly when there are concurrent findings concerning the proved charges.
Referring to the precedent in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary noted,
"This Court finds that in the instant case the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality or errors of law/ procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice in the enquiry proceedings or in findings recorded by the disciplinary authority based on the enquiry report. The appellate Court affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and found that no ground for interference was called for in the findings expressed by the disciplinary authority."
Case Title: Bina Goswami v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 15
The Jharkhand High Court has held that when the claimant is a nurse whose work involves considerable movement, then a 30% medical disability due to knee injury can be regarded as a functional disability of the claimant.
Thus, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Justice Gautam Choudhary noted,
"The claimant is a nurse whose work involves considerable movement while attending to the patients and is not a stationary job. It has come in evidence that she had sustained fracture of knee which resulted in 30% disablement. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the medical disability of 30% can be regarded as the functional disability of the claimant."
The Court added that simply because the claimant was on a contractual job will not disentitle her to the claim."To the contrary, considering the uncertain nature of a contractual job, disability in her lower limb will certainly adversely affect her earning capacity," it observed.
Case Title: Jai Prakash Narayan Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Jha) 17
The Jharkhand High Court has held that Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 does not confer power upon the Lokayukta to pass a direction commanding upon the disciplinary authority to take action against a person, against whom irregularities are found to be true in the course of inquiry.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that the authority can only make a recommendation to that effect.
228. Jharkhand High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Regularization Of Persons Employed Under MNREGA
Case title - Mrityunjay Kumar and others v. State of Jharkhand and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 32
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ plea moved by 39 persons working on the sanctioned post of Gram Rojgar Sewak under the MNREGA scheme for more than 10 years seeking regularization of their employment.
The Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed that the petitioners have not produced or placed on record any scheme for regularization of persons employed under MNREGA.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 56
The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that to justify a 'humanitarian appointment,' one only needs to show the provision of law which allows such an appointment; and no other document of law can justify the same in the absence of the power to do so.
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary placed no merit in the petitioner's argument that he could not place his best defence as he was not given an opportunity to produce essential documents. She remarked,
"The petitioner, in order to justify his appointment of "humanitarian ground" has to simply show the provision of law and no document can justify his appointment of "humanitarian ground" in absence of any power to do so. In the absence of power to appoint on "humanitarian ground," no document concerning appointment could have justified the appointment of the petitioner, and accordingly, the arguments of the petitioner that he could not place his best defence in the absence of essential documents are devoid of any merits and in fact no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of documents demanded by the petitioner."
Case Title : Jharkhand Public Service Commission v Dr. Mrs. Vanmala Choudahry and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 59
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the issuance of PhD degree to a research student is not a requisite condition for promotion of his Lecturer or Reader to the post of University Professor.
A single judge bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed the "experience of guiding research at doctoral level", which may or may not lead up to the student being awarded a PhD degree, is sufficient for the purpose.
Case Title: Rita Giri Versus The Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 75
The Jharkhand High Court recently granted relief to the married daughter of a deceased employee who was denied compassionate employment by the Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited.
Justice S. N. Pathak observed that the case is an example where the applicant for compassionate appointment was "discriminated" on the ground of gender.
Case Title:Parvathamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that Payment of WagesAct is a beneficial piece of enactment. The workmen cannot be denied the legal entitlement by applying technicalities while adjudicating the claim application. Justice Jyoti Mulimani thus quashed the order dated January 28, 2015 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner rejecting the claim petition filed by one Parvathamma, who worked as a watcher with the Department of Forest and Environment Department, merely because her signature was missing on the claim application.
Case Title: RameshMalli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless Case No: W.P. No. 104944/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has said that a probationer in theKarnataka police department cannot be terminated on the grounds of misconduct without carrying out an inquiry under the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "It is true that the petitioner has no right to hold the post and he can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the probationary period for general unsuitability, but a probationer cannot be discharged imputing allegations amounting to misconduct. If any misconduct is alleged, then enquiry under Rule 7 of '1977 Rules' is necessary."
234. Punishment OfCompulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka HighCourt
Case Title: M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 46
Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government was subjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, theKarnataka High Court recently held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. It thus set aside the order of compulsory retirement issued in the year 2004.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the petition filed by M.S. Kadkol. It confirmed the guilt of the petitioner however, set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order of punishment on the petitioner.
Case Title: Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, SchoolManaging Committee, Volkart Academy Case no: R.F.A.NO.100061/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide on a suit filed by a teacher claiming arrears in salary, if she is discharged from her duties on account of closure of the school and no order is passed by the school management on her claims seeking arrears in salary. A Division bench of Dr.Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice S. Rachaiah recently set aside the order dated November 9, 2020 passed by the civil court by which it had rejected the plaint filed by an Urdu teacher, on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Case Title: Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University Case No: WA105/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Mandya University to continue the services of guest lecturers for another academic year, until the recruitment of full time lecturers as initiated by the University is completed. A Division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj while allowing an intra-court appeal filed by Dr S Srinivasa and others challenging the order of the single judge bench dated December 21, 2021, said, "The Guest Lecturers now working shall be entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 7.10.2021 for extension of service by one more academic year until the recruitment of lecturers is completed."
Case Title: Archana M G v. Abhilasha Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3399 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by oneArchana M G, a Grama Panchayat Member, challenging the order of the Civil court which unseated her on the ground of lack of social status as a Scheduled Tribe member. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "There is no dispute as to petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, by birth, although she claims to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member of scheduled tribe. Ordinarily, caste is determined by birth and caste of a person follows that of his/her father."
Case Title: Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22979 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that maternity benefits such as allowing an employee to work from home, under section 5 (5) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017, could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her to work from home.
Case Title: Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) CaseNo: W.P. NO.1120/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the Rajiv GandhiUniversity Of Health Sciences to take action against delinquent examiners in-charge of conducting Clinical Examinations for MBBS and MD courses, who are routinely found violating the guidelines issued by the University. A single judge bench of Justice P Krishna Bhat said, "It is necessary to observe that examiners appointed by the respondent- University seem to be routinely violating the guidelines issued by the University for holding the Clinicals examination.As a matter of fact, the learned counsel brought to my notice the order dated 22-12-2020 in Writ Appeal No.615 of 2020 (EDN-RES) (Rajiv Gandhi University OfHealth Sciences V. Mr. Ramegowda Y. And Others), wherein also this Court had an occasion to notice such malpractice and direct re-conduct of practical examinations."
Case Title: MsPadmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation Case No: Writ PetitionNo.21448 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court has said that since Air India Limited is now a private Company owned by M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd., the grievance of the employees can be redressed only before the competent authority which can deal with the question and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A single judge bench of Justice R Devdas made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by petitioner Padmavathi Subramaniyan and two other employees ofAir India Limited. The petitioner had approached the court with a grievance in matter of seniority.
Case Title: Sampada and others v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 8202/2022,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed questioning government notification by which it amended the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules,1967 and excluded subjects namely Psychology and Journalism at the graduate level as the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of graduate primary teacher.
Case Title: MOHAMED ARIF JAMEEL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6795 OF2022 (S-RES-PIL)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed seeking to declare the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection andAppointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act 2022 as unconstitutional, illegal and void. Through the said Act, the government has validated the recruitment of 362 gazetted 'probationers' of the 2011 batch, selected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission.
Case Title: The Management Of KSRTC v. K.Shivaram Case No: Writ Petition No.17583/2017(L-KSRTC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court has said that a workman who claims compensation due to injuries suffered during the course of employment, his claims under the Employees Compensation Act 1923, would lie before the Employees Compensation Commissioner and not before the Labour Court.
Case Title: Chief Executive Officer and Anr v. K.V. Puttaraju Case No: W.P.No.46017/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an order passed by the Controlling Authority/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which directed government bodies to pay gratuity amount claimed by former employees from the time they were employed as daily wage earners till their employment was regularised.
Case Title: DRCHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others
Case no: W.A.NO.100198/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court has observed that fixation of retirement age of public servants has a direct bearing on the state exchequer as well as employment opportunities for others. In view thereof, it dismissed a writ petition filed by the former Dean of a College, seeking directions to the state government to continue his service upto the age of 65 years, instead of62 years.
Case Title: VikasVerma & Others v. Union of India & Others.
Case No: WA 5651/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal from service order passed by the Disciplinary Authority against eight constables of CentralIndustrial Security Force (CISF), for allegedly blackmailing and repeatedly raping the wife of another constable. The order was passed without holding regular inquiry.
Case Title: SHIVANAND LAXMAN ANCHI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.16983 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a former Civil Judge, Junior Division questioning the order dated March 22, 2021passed by the state government ordering compulsory retirement from service.
248. Ad Hoc AppointmentsCan Be Made On Rotational Basis,Seniority Not A Criteria: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES v. DR. DIGAMBARAPPA, & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.100263 OF 2022 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100264 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 240
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the SingleJudge bench which held that appointments to the post of Director of University of Agricultural Sciences, on ad-hoc basis, shall be done on seniority basis.
Case Title:DR.S.P.RAGHUNATH v. THE UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.8644/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 250
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a71-year-old retired Engineer in Chief of Central Government seeking a direction to appoint him as the Chief Engineer at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Theertha Kshethra on honorarium basis.
250. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Grasim's Plea Against Increase In Employees' Retirement Age To 60 Yrs
Case Title: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, EMPLOYEES UNION & Others
Case NO: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100250 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Management of M/S Grasim Industries, challenging a single judge bench order which upheld the modification of Certified Standing Order passed by the Labour Commissioner, that enhanced the retirement age of employees in private sector from 58 to 60 years.
Case Title: Dyavappa v Bangalore University & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 6426/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The Karnataka High Court has said that the state government order, providing that in case eligible women applicants under a reserved category post are not available, such posts could be filled up by eligible male candidates of the same category is applicable to recruitment notifications issued under the General Recruitment Rules or recruitment as regards backlog vacancies under the Special Recruitment Rules.
Case Title: DIVYA RAJESH HAGARAGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 12388/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Divya Rajesh Hagaragi who is a prime accused in the Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment Scam, questioning the appointment of Dr. N. Ramakrishna Reddy as a Special Officer to the Karnataka Nursing and Paramedical Sciences Education (Regulation) Authority.
Case Title: MS. NOWHERA SHAIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6926 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
The Karnataka High Court has said that head cooks and cooks employed on contract basis under the 'Bisi Oota Mid-day Meal scheme', being run by the state government do not qualify for wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Case Title: K.P.N. SHENOY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
The Karnataka High Court has held that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against a bank employee, who happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community and is accused of committing irregularities, cannot be challenged under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act, after such employee has accepted the penalty and has received the pension.
Case Title: MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14860 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to ensure that if transfers are made after the period of general transfers, no request for transfers should be entertained or orders made unless there is a vacant place.
256. Karnataka High Court Asks State Government To Review Employee Transfer Guidelines
Case Title: R D RAMADAS v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11934/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
Concerned over the increase in number of cases related to transfer orders of government employees, the Karnataka High Court has said it is high time for the State to have relook at the relevant guidelines framed by it in 2013.
"The State being the largest litigant owes a duty to the justice delivery dispensation," said the court. The court said the state government should look into the concept of commutable distance and also consider the distinction between areas - which are well equipped with all the basic necessities like hospitals, schools, colleges, residential accommodation etc, and remote and inaccessible areas involving Hilly Terrain, Towns and Villages surrounded by forest etc or towns and villages in highly undeveloped or under-developed parts of the State.
Case Title: AP v. WIPRO LIMITED REPRESENTED
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 47550 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the Grievance Redressal Committees established by various Startups and IT companies, in compliance with State government's notification issued in 2014, cannot decide disputes relating to termination of employment.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the said notification relates to grievances of an "existing employee" and thus, an ex-employee cannot challenge his termination on the ground that the enquiry against him was not conducted by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC).
Case Title: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD v SAYEEDA KHANAM W/O. LATE AZAM KHAN
Case No: MFA No.25711/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there are no provisions prohibiting blood relatives to be employer and employee.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh sitting at Dharwad dismissed the appeal filed by the Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance, questioning the order of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at Koppal by which it fastened liability on the company in a claim petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased driver Azam Khan, who died in an accident in 2008.
Case Title: THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GANGANNA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24370 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Managing Director of State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to institute a proper Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure that no contradictory stand is taken by any of the disciplinary authorities and/or the authorities who file written statements in the Motor Accident claim proceedings.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "if any such event occurs, necessary disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against such persons by following the applicable rules." It added, "Instructions to be also issued that a statement to be made in any written statement filed in a Motor Vehicle Accident claim petition, if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated or not."
Case Title: SAMIULLA B v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9520 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
The Karnataka High Court has said that an employee, who is terminated from the organisation, cannot initiate criminal proceedings against the organisation for the alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Samiulla B and quashed the case pending against him before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Sti Mutturaj G.S., the employee had filed an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 149 of the IPC against the petitioner and others.
Case Title: DR. NAGESH v. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.60243 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
The Karnataka High Court has said the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) or complainants including the hospitals cannot use provisions of law pertaining to the doctors' professional misconduct as a machinery for recovery of money from them in the guise of disciplinary proceedings.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "The provisions of law, Chapter VII of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 read with Section 15 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, cannot be used either by the complainant or by the disciplinary authority i.e., KMC as the machinery for recovery of the money, in the guise of disciplinary proceedings."
262. Bank Employees' Gratuity Can't Be Adjusted Against Their Outstanding Loan: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S CANARA BANK v. M SHANTHA KUMARI
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11463 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 414
The Karnataka High Court has held that the gratuity amount payable to a bank employee cannot be adjusted by the bank with his outstanding loan amount. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj thus dismissed a petition filed by the Canara Bank questioning the order of Appellate Authority which set aside the order of the Controlling Authority permitting adjustment of gratuity towards loans of the employee.
Case Title: MANJULA.N v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY POLICE
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33134/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
The Karnataka High Court has said that an agreement entered between two persons allowing the other to seek compassionate appointment under Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,1996, cannot be enforced against the State.
A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit dismissed the petition filed by Manjula. N seeking a direction to Deputy Commissioner of Police City, Armed Reserve Force, to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds.
264. Karnataka State Commission For SC/ST Has No Adjudicatory Power In Service Matters: High Court
Case Title: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUMAPPOINTING AUTHORITY KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY v. THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION & ANR
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.36193/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
The Karnataka High Court has said that the State Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Commission is not conferred with adjudicatory powers under the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 and it cannot direct regularisation of services.
A single judge bench of Justice S.G. Pandit allowed the petition filed by the Executive Director-cum-Appointing Authority of Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society and set aside the 2016 order of the Commission directing regularisation of service of Jyothi Mallappa Savanalli as Principal of Morarji Desai Residential School Arakeri.
Case Title: VIMALA RAMANATH PAWAR v. SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20321 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
The Karnataka High Court has said that though recovery of excess amounts paid by banks to pensioners is permitted, that would not mean that the excess is to be recovered in one stroke. Such amount may be recovered in monthly installments, it said.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case of a 73-years-old widow aggrieved by the action of Canara Bank which debited Rs. 6,40,000 from her family pension account without even any communication.
Case Title: ASHVEEJA T.C v. ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20999 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner, dismissing an Archak of the Bhoga Nandishwara Temple in Chikkaballapur Taluk, without holding an inquiry on charges of alleged misconduct.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the respondent-authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and complete the enquiry within two weeks, as was directed by the High Court in an earlier round of litigation (against petitioner's suspension). Till then, it permitted the petitioner to perform as Archak in the temple.
267. Adopted Child Entitled To Seek Compassionate Appointment: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: GIRISH S/O VINAYAK KMUTTATTI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100362 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an adopted child can seek compassionate appointment following the death of his/her adoptive parent who took care of the family.
A division bench of Justices Suraj Govindaraj and G Basavaraja observed, "A son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted then there would be no purpose served by adoption."
Case Title: NALINI DEVI v. THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.22058 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
The Karnataka High Court has restrained the Canara Bank from recovering the excess amount paid to a senior citizen in the family pension account and has asked the bank to recover the same from its officers who are responsible for not acting on the pensioner's representations for years.
The pensioner had, on several occasions starting from the year 2016, requested the bank to deduct the excess amount in instalments and unblock her account.
269. Karnataka Home Guards Can Be Suspended Without Prior Notice: High Court
Case Title: KEMPAMANI D E v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17691/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with an order suspending a Home Guard without prior notice following registration of a FIR against her. A Single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit said,
"Rule 14-B of the Karnataka Home Guards Rules, 1963 empowers the Commandant General or Commandant to keep a Home Guard under suspension. No notice would be necessary for keeping a Home Guard under suspension, since suspension would be pending or contemplated enquiry."
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.17708/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
The Karnataka High Court has observed that as per Rule 214 (2) (b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, no enquiry can be initiated against a retired person in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years prior to institution of enquiry.
A single judge bench of Justice SG Pandit allowed the petition filed by Anil Kumar and T. Mallanna, former employees of Karnataka Housing Board, and quashed the Charge Memo as well as appointment of Enquiry Officer.
Case Title: Purbayan Chakraborty v. Union of India
Case No: WP 19157/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed a law student to withdraw his PIL challenging a Central Government notification which imposes a precondition on candidates appearing for SSC (NT) JAG entry scheme 2023 to have appeared for CLAT 2022 PG program.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi orally observed that a public interest litigation petition is not maintainable in service matters. Moreover, when a selection agency wants a candidate having a certain qualifications, the Court cannot sit over the decision.
Case Title: Hanumanthappa v. The Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd & others.
Case No: M.F.A. NO.1234/2014 (WC) C/W. M.F.A. NO.2414/2014 (WC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
The Karnataka High Court has said the amendment brought to Section 20 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, notified on 23.01.2014, which bars the Commissioner from conducting an inquiry/proceedings on the claims under the Act and confers the powers to the concerned courts, is not applicable to a case decided prior to issuing of the notification.
A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh rejected the appeal filed by the Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, questioning the judgment and award dated 19.08.2013, passed by Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Davanagere District, questioning the quantum and liability of the compensation awarded to the claimant.
Case Title: Tumakuru City Corporation v. Tumkuru Poura karmikara Sangha & others
Case No: WP 28392 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 512
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, directing the Tumakuru City Corporation to regularise services of 250 daily wage workmen (pourakarmikas), by paying equal pay for equal work from the date of their joining and extend all statutory benefits, emoluments and facilities as available under law to permanent workmen in the similar cadre/post.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the appeal filed by the corporation against the tribunal order and said "Payments being made albeit on few occasions to the workmen directly by the Corporation would constitute employer-employee relationship."
Case Title: Harish Chandra Hinunia v. Food Corporation Of India
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 30
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently prohibited departmental inquiry against an employee with respect to a charge identical to the one for which he was under trial in a criminal case. Justice Atul Sreedharan cited two reasons for doing so:
First, the charge against the employee under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act involved complicated questions of fact and law.
Second, both proceedings involved same set of witnesses which may lead to disclosure of the accused's defence in the course of the departmental enquiry, and may hamper fair trial if it comes to the knowledge of the prosecution.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 34
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition whereby the Petitioner was seeking revival of his candidature for a post at an Ordnance Factory, observing that his acquittal from the trial court in a criminal case was not honourable and clean.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav observed,
"The sensitivity involved in a post may not be of such high degree as involved in a disciplined/uniformed service but since the organization where the petitioner would have been employed was under the Ministry of Defence catering to the requirements of the Armed Forces, the element of sovereignty of the nation comes into being."
Case Title: Shakila Begum (Siddiqui) & another Vs Northern Coal Field Ltd. & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 40
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the policy of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) to not consider sisters/ married daughters for compassionate appointment is a clear case of gender bias and is thus, unconstitutional.
Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner who was aggrieved by the order passed by the Respondent company, whereby it had rejected her application for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased.
Case Title: GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. PREMSINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 42
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently upheld the decision of a single bench wherein the Writ Court had directed the State to consider the younger son of a deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, despite his elder son serving in the Indian Army. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pranay Verma noted that the elder son, though was in regular employment, lived separately, had constituted his own family and was not in a position to provide financial aid to the deceased's family, i.e. deceased's wife and younger son.
278. Post Of Water Carrier Constable In Police Force Not A Technical Job: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: STATE OF M.P. v. SUNNY KARARI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 46
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, recently held that the Post of Constable (Water Carrier) in Police department is not a technical job and accordingly, rejected the contention of the State that the said post being technical, required a higher degree of medical fitness than what the Petitioner in this case possessed. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the State against the order of the Writ Court, whereby the State was directed to issue a consequential appointment order in favour of the Petitioner (Respondent in Appeal), along with other benefits.
Case Title: Bharti Meshram v. State of madhya pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 58
The High Court directed the State Government to sympathetically consider the representation of a government school teacher, who was 100 percent visually impaired, for a posting based on her preference.
The case of the Petitioner was that she was a resident of Waraseoni, District Balaghat and was 100 percent visually impaired. She was recently appointed as a Middle School Teacher of a Government School at Sarouli, District Jabalpur. The said school being 300 kms away from her hometown, she made two representations to the concerned authorities, requesting for a posting near her hometown, but the same were kept pending. Therefore, she filed the writ petition seeking direction of the Court to the Respondents to consider her case sympathetically and give her a posting based on her three preferences.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Pathak & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 59
The High Court held that the Petitioners, who were working for an agency that was hired by the State, did not have a legal right to stop the government from outsourcing services in the interest of the economy and efficiency.
Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari was dealing with a batch of petitions that were challenging the order passed by the State Government, whereby it decided to outsource the services through an outsourcing agency and had also directed for fresh selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade- III/Data Entry Operator by conducting an open written examination.
Case Title: Adam Khan v. State of MP& Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 68
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday held that the candidates belonging to other states will also be permitted to participate in the MP State Civil Services Exam (MPSC). It further directed the MP Public Service Commission to make adequate improvisation in its website to permit such candidates to submit their application forms.
Justice Vivek Agarwal was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by a resident of Jharkhand who was unable to register himself for the MPSC exam. He sought for a direction to the authorities to open application forms for the MPSC Examination, 2021, for which the last date for submission is March 12, to all the candidates irrespective of the domiciles..
Case Title: Atul Kumar Tiwari v. State of MP & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 77
The High Court requested its Registrar General to file a complaint case against the Petitioner for making false statements and producing fake medical documents before the Court.
Justice Atul Sreedharan was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order passed by his employers, whereby his representation to condone his absence for the period from 2003 to 2006 on the grounds of serious illness and his reinstatement in service, was rejected.
Case Title: Poonam Pal D/o Laxman Singh Pal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 79
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench directed a Government Bank to reverse its decision of cancelling the candidature of a successful candidate for the post of Office Assistant (Multi purpose) due to typographical error in date of birth, and to further issue appointment order in her favour.
Justice Pranay Verma observed,
"It is not the case of respondent itself that the petitioner has derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in the application. There was no intentional misrepresentation on part of the petitioner as she had submitted her school Certificate. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. Cancellation of candidature of petitioner on the ground of typographical error in her application form is hence arbitrary and grossly disp
Case Title :Kanak Kumar Shrivastava V The Registrar General And Ors
Case Title: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 87
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld its decision of not interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, directing compulsory retirement of a court reader as punishment for taking bribe of Rs. 10.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking direction of the Court to quash the impugned orders of his punishment and arrears for the period of his suspension.
Case Title: DR. SURYA TIWARI v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 95
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently directed a Government Medical College to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner, who was a successful candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in the said Institution.
The case of the Petitioner was that she had appeared for the interview round for the post of Assistant Professor in a Government Medical College at District Vidisha. She was later declared to be a successful candidate under the general category. However, the College did not issue the letter of appointment even after 40 days of announcing the result. She argued that due to some political pressure, the authority concerned was trying to recruit some other candidate instead of her. She further submitted that despite having shortage of faculty in medical colleges across the State, the authorities are dragging their feet to issue her the appointment letter.
Case Title : Smt. Kala Devi v State of M.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 96
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench recently held that a harmonious reading of Rule 4A, 6 (3) of M.P. Pension Rules, 1979 and Rule 47 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 would reveal that family of a person employed in a regular work-charged establishment, cannot be deprived of the pension, which it would be entitled for by virtue of Rule 4A of Rules, 1979.
The Division Bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice M.R. Phadke was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order passed by the Writ Court, wherein her prayer for directing the State to provide her with family pension was rejected.
Case Title: Kishor Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 99
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday, struck down Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of M.P. State Services Examination Rules, 2015 which barred meritorious candidates from reserved categories to secure birth as unreserved candidates at the stage of preliminary and main examinations, as unconstitutional.
Observing that the impugned rule led to 'Artificial classification', the division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal called it 'arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution'-
Case Title: STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. VERSUS SMT. NIRMALA RAWAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 112
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently suggested the State Government to amend the circular governing the service rules of Anganwadi Workers by categorising their penalties as major and minor punishments.
The Court further observed that irrespective of the gravity of mistakes of an Anganwadi Worker, the only recourse available to authorities to take action against them, as per the said circular, was their termination.
Case Title: NEERAJ v. SUDHIR AGRAWAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 129
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently held that the provisions under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act restraining the employer from changing service conditions of workman during pendency of a dispute can be applied in pending reference under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act of 1955).
Case Title: Dr. Prakash kumar dubey v. Rani durgawati university
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 132
The High Court held that the post of Scientific Officer/Senior Technical Assistant is not covered under the definition of a 'Teacher' under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed-
In the present case, the petitioner has not brought on record any material to show that the post of Senior Technical Assistant or that of Scientific Officer has been declared by the Statute to be a post of Teacher… In the present case, since the post of Senior Technical Assistant or Scientific Officer has not been included in the Statute to mean a Teacher, no extension can be given to the definition just to accommodate the petitioner without there being any material and dehors the Statute.
Case Title: vishal pandey and anr. versus food corporation of india and ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 134
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the child of the deceased government employee shall be considered as 'Dependant', despite the parent losing their custody, for the purpose of compassionate employment.
Deciding the writ petition, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed-
I am of the opinion that impugned order deserves to be quashed as it is arbitrary and has failed to take into consideration a comprehensive meaning of the word 'dependent'. Respondents have tried to supply a very restricted meaning to the clause 'dependents', vide Annexure P-10, whereas admittedly, by virtue of divorce of his mother, petitioner No.1 will not lose his status of being a son who is covered by definition of 'dependent family member'.
Title: Shyam Kumar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 140
The High Court set aside the transfer order of a bureaucrat who was being transferred at the 'insistence' of the State Minister of Urban Administration.
The Court observed that although the elected representatives can always recommend the transfer of an employee, it ought to be done citing genuine and cogent reasons. It further noted that such interference by the Executive in matters of transfer was 'highly inappropriate'.
Case Title: State Of Madhya Pradesh V Satya Narayan Dubey
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 147
The High Court observed that public interest is also an element on the consideration of which an employee can be placed under suspension. The Court further held that even if it is alleged that the particular department of the employee did not suffer any loss due to him, the same cannot make him immune to suspension.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal observed-
…it cannot be forgotten that if the respondent, a senior officer is reinstated by staying the suspension order, he can scuttle the inquiry or investigation or can win over the witnesses of the departmental inquiry. This is within the province of the disciplinary authority to decide whether an employee is required to be suspended or not because suspension is a step towards ultimate result of an investigation or inquiry.
Case Title: Swadeshi Panchalai Thozilalar v. The Secretary, Industries and Commerce
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court has set aside notices for the closure of two Mills in Puducherry, whose history dates back to the French Colonial period, on the ground that provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with in its true spirit.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan noted that the Mills were closed without issuing any notice of enquiry under Section 25-O of the 1947 Act for making objection before the Authority concerned and without taking up the matter for hearing.
295. SpiceJet Vs Credit Suisse AG- Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Airline's Admission Of Winding Up
Case Title: SpiceJet Limited v. Credit Suisse AG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
Madras High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by SpiceJet against a single-judge bench order for admission of its winding up on Credit Suisse AG's Company Petition.
After hearing the counsels appearing for SpiceJet and Credit Suisse at length, a Division Bench of Justices Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup and Paresh Upadhyay noted in the order that the Original Second Appeals are dismissed and the Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Since the stay on the operation of the impugned order is till today, the bench agreed to extend the application of stay order till 28th January so as to afford the appellant an opportunity to approach the Supreme Court.
The grievances of the appellant airlines and the issues framed by the court were pertaining to the alleged errors in the single judge bench order that does the following:
(i) admission of the winding-up petition, which is filed invoking Sections 433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, and
(ii) appointment of the Official Liquidator, High Court of Madras as Provisional Liquidator.
Case Title: M.Sornam v. The Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
In a writ petition filed by the widow of a freedom fighter for grant of Family Freedom Fighters Monthly pension, Madras High Court set aside the rejection order by Freedom Figher Revenue Division (F.F.R) and directed the processing of Petitioner's application under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
While allowing the plea of the petitioner wife, the court also made some stringent remarks about bureaucrats denying the freedom fighters pension on flimsy, technical grounds.
The single-judge bench of Justice C.V Karthikeyan was adjudicating a plea filed by the widow of E. Muthiya, a freedom fighter who was a Sepoy in the Indian National Army (INA) and served under the late lamented Nethaji Subhas Chandrabose. According to the wife's petition, her late husband was taken to detention in Burma (May 1945- July 1945) and incarcerated in Rangoon Central Jail (August 1945- July 1946) while he was retreating with the INA
Case Title: A. Thilakam v. The Joint Director/ Appellate Authority & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
Madras High Court has recently observed that the second appeal under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is not restricted to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment alone.
The single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam has categorically stated that the appeal remedy before the tribunal under Section 24 extends to any alteration of service conditions in Section 23 after exhausting the right to seek relief before the competent authority, i.e, the first appeal.
Under the Act, the competent authority includes the Joint Director of Elementary Education (Aided Schools) and the tribunal empowered is the respective jurisdictional Principal Sub Court.
"The language employed in Section 24 is that a teacher or other person or the educational agency are entitled to prefer the second appeal. Therefore, even in respect of minor punishment falling under Section 23(b), the educational agency or the teacher or other person may file a second appeal... The second appeal is not restricted with reference to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment alone...", the court observed.
Case Title: Manimaran v. The Chief General Manager/ Reviewing Authority, Canara Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
Madras High Court has held that material aspects that were not considered by the Disciplinary Authority can be construed as 'new evidence' by the Reviewing Authority to exercise its power of review.
The court observed that the power of reviewing authority is not intended for mechanical exercise and aims at a clear application of mind. This would include whether the nature of charges have been already proved or not and whether the punishment imposed is in commensuration with the gravity of charges so proved or not proved. The Reviewing Authority shall also examine if all the material aspects ought to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority have been taken into account or not.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the course of action taken by the Authority is within the purview of Clause 18 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976, contrary to the arguments raised by the petitioner employee. According to the said provision, the authority can review the order when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review comes into light.
Case Title: K. Radha v. The Chief Educational Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
Slamming those in the teaching community that takes private tuition classes for remuneration and do other businesses, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to prevent government school teachers from flouting the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and Service Rules.
The court was deprecating the trend of teachers approaching the High Court even for transfer to a nearby place. The court also added that once they manage to get an interim order of stay, they continue staying in the same place for several years, which is detrimental to the rights of other employees and public administration.
Justice SM Subramaniam has also observed that the Teachers Associations in the state are illegally interfering in the affairs of the Education Department. The single-judge bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam has directed the Principal Secretary to constitute Special Teams at the District level to monitor and initiate disciplinary proceedings if teachers are involving themselves in private business/ tuition centres, other part-time employments etc.
Case Title: O. Selvam & Ors v. The Commissioner of School Education & Ors & Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
Madras High Court has recently iterated that when two posts carry equivalent scale of pay and are treated as equal categories under the Rules, the petitioners have no right to claim a particular post as a matter of right or choice.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court underscored that when the service conditions are not infringed from and out of the administrative transfers effected, the Government employees have no right to claim a specific post as their choice.
Justice S M Subramaniam was hearing a plea made by petitioners who were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants (Bachelor of Teaching) and some others who were promoted as B.T. Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Petitioners belonging to both categories has passed the Deputy Inspector's Test and were qualified to be transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, an equivalent cadre carrying identical pay scale. Since they met the requirements under Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, they were appointed as Deputy Inspectors.
The petitioners were challenging the 6th January notification by the Joint Director of School Education directing the District level Chief Educational Officers to make administrative transfers and accordingly post these Deputy Inspectors as B.T Assistants by 7th January.
