Articles

Team of top/best Lawyer of Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur/Jodhpur having various judgment on service matters

SHEORAN & TANWAR ASSOCIATES

(Law Firm)

111, SHIV NAGAR - II, MURLIPURA

SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

Website:- www.stlegal.in

Email:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Contact Us : 0141-2262495/ Mob: +91- 9001612660

Practicing at: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR / JODHPUR 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

GIST OF SERVICE MATTER JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT 

 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. PUNRA DEVI

Integrated Child Development Scheme, Rules 4, 5 – Appointment of Anganwari Worker – From Anganwari Helper – Eligibility Criteria – It is neither the case of the respondent that due to her marriage or divorce she is required to be transferred from one centre to another centre, nor is her case for promotion/ appointment from the post of AWH to AWW in the same Anganwari Centre – Admittedly, she was appointed in 2007 as AWH in Anganwari Centre, ‘C’ – Now she has prayed for her appointment to the post of AWW in Anganwari Centre ‘H’ – It is not disputed that the communication dated 10.5.2012, issued by the appellant No. 2 (Director, Social Justice and Empowerment) to CDPOs of the State provides that if a post of AWW falls vacant in an Anganwari Centre, AWH of the same centre can be considered for her appointment to the post of AWW, giving her priority – High Court has erred in directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent, who is AWH in the Anganwari Centre of ‘C’, for the post of AWW in the Anganwari Centre of ‘H’ as the area of one Anganwari Centre is not the feeder area of another Anganwari Centre – Impugned orders passed by the High Court cannot be sustained.

 

TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION O INDIA & ORS.

LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(r), 10(1), 18, 19 and 36A – Absorption – Concerned workmen in industrial dispute referred to the CGIT have been discharging perennial nature of work against the regular permanent posts in the Corporation – Industrial dispute raised by similarly placed workmen, who were appointed between the period 01.01.1982 till 20.05.1985 was adjudicated on the points of dispute by the NIT with regard to the justification of absorption of the said workmen as permanent workmen in their respective posts – Upon the reference under Section 36A of the Act being made by the Ministry of Labour to Justice it clarified the same directs only for the absorption of the workmen concerned in the said dispute in the various offices, Divisions and Zones throughout the country and it does not amount to recruitment – SLP filed by respondent-corporation was disposed of since eight out of the nine workmen Unions said to be representing about 99% of the workers have entered into a compromise with the management of the Corporation without any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the members of the other Union, who have not entered into such compromise with the Corporation and the Award was neither set aside by the Court or substituted the compromise terms in the place of the Award – CGIT has rightly adjudicated the industrial dispute referred to it by the Central Government at the instance of the concerned workmen on the points of dispute, on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record and legal principles laid down in the Awards passed by the NIT – Awards passed by the NIT is binding upon the Corporation till it is substituted by another Award or replaced by another settlement in relation to the service conditions of the workmen of the Corporation in accordance with law as provided under Section 12 read with Section 18(3) of the Act or another Award that is required to be passed by the Jurisdictional CGIT in relation to the above subject matter after the Awards which are in operation are terminated by either of the parties as provided under Section 19(6) of the Act –Judgments of the High Court are clearly contrary to law and legal principles laid down by this Court hence the same liable to be set aside by allowing these appeals and restoring the Award of the CGIT.

 

SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM. Vs. A.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. ETC.

Recruitment – Selection – Dispute as to answer sheets of 91 candidates – Said answer sheets directed to be forwarded by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to the UPSC – The UPSC shall forward the said answer sheets to an expert, who shall not re-examine those answer sheets but shall examine whether the candidates answering the questions had given any indication in the answer sheets to reveal their identity – The expert shall also note the fact that the High Court had examined the answer sheets and had cleared 8 answer sheets, wherein the candidates had not given any indication with regard to their identity – The expert shall look into the said 8 answer sheets for the purpose of ascertaining the basis upon which, the said eight answer sheets were found flawless and follow the same criteria – The UPSC directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid material by it.

 

 

NAND KISHORE OJHA Vs. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH

Contempt of Court Act, 1971, Section 2(b) – Contempt of Court – Recruitment – Appointment – Trained teachers – Superannuation – Retiral benefits – Claim for – Contention that some candidates are to retire at the age of 60 by 31-1-2012 within which period they would have attained the age of 60 years – Held that though this matter has been pending for a long time and there is possibility of some candidates being adversely affected on account of such delay, but at the same time a person cannot be allowed the benefits of appointment without serving the institution for at least some length of time – Accordingly, the cases of the candidates who will be retiring on or before 31-1-2012 need not be considered for appointment.

 

M. RAMDAS Vs. APSRTC

APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963 – Regulation 28 (xxxi) and (xxxii) – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Service Law – Natural Justice – Misconduct – Suspension – Imposing punishment of reducing pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year – Violation of natural justice – Writ of Mandamus – It is obvious that copy of enquiry report was not furnished to petitioner – Unless enquiry report is produced, contention urged by petitioner that there is no mention in MTD-141 chart about touching of village Puppalapally in downward journey cannot be appreciated – By not filing enquiry report even along with counter affidavit, respondents were unable to demonstrate before this Court that MTD-141 chart was produced in course of enquiry and therein there was mention about touching of village Puppalapally in downward journey – Held that petitioner therefore was not given a reasonable opportunity of put forth his case on findings recorded against him by enquiry officer – Since impugned proceedings of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are made in utter violation of principles of natural justice, fair play in action affecting rights of petitioner, the same are quashed and set aside – Writ Petition allowed.

 

SANTOSH PAL MEENA Vs. UPSC & ORS.

Service Law – Appointment to post of Principal in DOE, GNCTD – Eligibility – What is essential is aggregate ten years’ teaching experience, along with at least a second class masters’ degree with a degree in teaching education from a recognized University – Furthermore, UPSC itself has power to relax even experience requirements – Held, in these circumstances, respondents’ contentions that educational qualification of masters together with ten years’ teaching in relevant institution, after acquiring masters’ degree, is not borne out, textually, or by implication – This interpretation has led to a mischievous result, in that several candidates, who qualified in written test, were deemed not entitled to consideration and a list of 88 candidates, (who had not otherwise fared as well as these, including petitioners), was published in an attempt to have them appointed – This procedure, through an interpretation, which is unfounded, has ousted petitioners’ candidature in an utterly arbitrary manner – Further, impugned order of CAT cannot also be upheld because having once adopted a short listing procedure, through a non-discriminatory rule of written screening test, second screening based on a note which seeks to go beyond rules that have force of law was clearly impermissible – Impugned order of CAT cannot be sustained – Respondents directed to process application and candidature of petitioners on basis that rules only require 10 years’ experience in prescribed institutions, along with second class masters’ degree and a degree in education both from recognized Universities – Petitions allowed.

 

G.M. (OPERATIONS) S.B.I & ANR. Vs. R. PERIYASAMY

State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, Rule 41(i), 49(h) – Constitution of India, Article 14 and 226 – Departmental Proceedings – Punishment – Dismissal – Judicial review – Held that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not the ground on which the findings of facts may be set- aside by the High Court under Article 226 – The justification offered by the Division Bench that the learned Single Judge had to undertake the exercise of analysing the findings of the enquiry officer because the appellants had deprived the respondent of his livelihood is wholly untenable – A transgression of jurisdiction cannot be justified on the ground of consequences, as has been done – Impugned order liable to be set aside and the writ petition of the respondent dismissed -Found appropriate to direct the appellant to pay an adhoc sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent who has retired long ago and has drawn pension of which he will be deprived hereafter.

 

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS Vs. AMARDOGRA

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Service Law – Promotion – Contempt Petition allowed and modified original judgment – Granted promotion from a retrospective date – Legality of – Promotion is not a matter of right – No case order could be held to be contemptuous thereby giving cause of action to respondent to prefer contempt petition – It is settled law that Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot pass supplemental order to main order passed in writ petition – Courts are not permitted to travel beyond four corners of order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in judgment or order violation of which is alleged – Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same, but in no case decided issue can be reopened – Impugned order passed by Single Judge whereby said order was modified, is set aside – Writ Petition filed by respondent is dismissed – Letter Patent Appeal allowed.

 

BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1963 – Section 13(2) – Service Law – Suspension Period Benefits – Revocation of suspension is accepted – Reinstated but denied promotiona1 benefit – In absence of any conviction on record, he is legally entitled for entire salary along with all emoluments for suspension period – It is proved on record that suspension of petitioner was revoked by Competent Authority of law – Held that monetary benefit will only be suspended after conviction from Competent Court of law and not otherwise – It is well settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by Competent Court of law – Respondents did not place on record any judgment and sentence of conviction against petitioner – It is well settled law that fundamental right of an individual suspended only after conviction from Competent Court of law – In absence of any conviction on record it is not expedient in ends of justice to suspend fundamental rights of petitioner – Directed that respondents will release entire salary along with all monetary benefits to petitioner during period he remained under suspension after adjusting amount already paid for post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) – Writ Petition partly allowed.

 

V. KANNAPPAN & ORS. Vs. ADDITIONAL SECY & ORS.(MIN.FIN&COM.AFRS)

Bank of Madura Employees’ Pension Regulation, 1995, Regulation 2(ze), (zea), 35(i),(ii) and (v) – ICICI Bank Early Retirement Option 2003 Scheme (ERO, 2003) – Pension – Option – Voluntary retirement – Before amalgamation and merger appellant though given time to opt pension Regulation1995 thrice but they did not opt for pension Regulation – The mandate of clause (v) of Regulation that “an employee who has opted for pension under the 1995 Regulations, and who opts for retirement under 2003, shall be eligible for pension – It has to be read with paragraph 8D of the ERO 2003 Scheme which provides, that eligible employees who had opted for the pension benefit as per the erstwhile 1995 Regulations, will be eligible for the same as per the terms and conditions of the said Regulations – The appellants had not opted for pension under the 1995 Regulations, they are clearly disentitled to claim pensionary benefits under Regulation 35 of the 1995 Regulations, even after the ERO 2003 Scheme was made a part and parcel of Regulation 2 (ze)/2(zea), and even after the amendment of Regulation 35 by adding clause (v) thereto – Appeal liable to be dismissed.

 

ADARSH JAUHAR Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, SECTOR 14, CHANDIGARH

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Service Law – Refresher Course – Permission to join three weeks’ refresher course in afternoon Session – Petitioner is posted as Assistant Professor and Head of the Department of Botany at Post Graduate Government College for Men, is required to attend two refresher courses to enable her to be eligible for grant of selection grade – She would make up loss of four hours study of forenoon session by completing that study in late evening hours – Held that petitioner has failed to show any provision of law which entitles her for such kind of permission by respondents – Since, nothing has been brought on record with regard to right of petitioner and corresponding duty of respondents, not found it to be a fit case in which directions can be issued to respondents for permission sought for by petitioner – Writ Petition dismissed.

 

MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H. P. AND OTHERS

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Service Law – Stay of departmental inquiry till conclusion of criminal trial – No legal bar against departmental inquiry, as well, as, criminal proceedings taking place simultaneously, as both have distinct and variant objectives – Departmental proceedings, be, stayed, till, conclusion of criminal trial, only, in event of delinquent accused demonstrating by material placed on record that he would, in face of commonality of witnesses/evidence, in both cases, be prejudiced – However, no convincing, hard and satisfactory material has been placed on record by accused/delinquent/petitioner demonstrative of, palpable or manifest prejudice ensuing to him – Hence, apprehension is, purportedly misleading, besides, illusory – Averments comprised in writ petition are illusory – Directions issued – Writ Petition dismissed.

 

M.P. SINGH BARGOTI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Madhya Pradesh Police (Gazetted Officers) Recruitment Rules 1987 – Promotion – Non consideration – Despite directions passed since 15.06.1993 by the Tribunal and lastly reiterated in the case of the appellant on 11.03.1998, a Combined Gradation List was not prepared at the appropriate time – Ultimately when it was prepared to show compliance with the order of the Tribunal, it was never acted upon – Appellant was never considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee till he was in service or even thereafter when person junior to the appellant in the Combined Gradation List was considered – Held that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in law as well as on facts in denying relief to the appellant -Appellant suffered hostile and arbitrary discrimination vis-a-vis a junior – Since the appellant was in service only till 31.03.1998, he is held entitled to notional promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 29.05.1997 till 31.03.1998 when his junior was promoted – He will be deemed to have superannuated on that post and shall be given all the post-retirement benefits by re-calculating the same on the premise that he held the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from 29.05.1997 till his superannuation on 31.03.1998 – The appellant held entitled to a consolidated cost of Rs.50,000/- which should also be paid along with other benefits.

 

DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

H.P. Board of School Education Act, 1968 – Section 23 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 16 and 226 – Service Law – Transfer – Transfer not in public interest nor in exigency of service – Contrary to provisions – Petitioner has been transferred on recommendation of a local leader, simply to accommodate 4th respondent – Petitioner has not completed her normal stay and managed her transfer – Held that transfers of Govt. servants on recommendations of political executives being not legally sustainable should be quashed – Impugned Order is set aside with cost of Rs.5000/- Writ Petition allowed.

 

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Vs. HITENDRA VRAJLAL ASHARA & ANR

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 – Disciplinary proceedings – Against Judicial Officer – Punishment – Dismissal – Judicial review – Division Bench of the High Court has reappreciated the evidence acting as a court of appeal – On facts Court found that no procedural irregularity has been committed by the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings as the same was conducted in accordance with Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, and principles of natural justice -The enquiring authority had elaborately considered the charges leveled against the delinquent officer and rightly held to be proved – Enquiry Officer has rightly rendered the finding against the delinquent and same was accepted by the High Court and on its recommendation the order of dismissal was passed by the appointing authority and it is legally justified – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court setting aside the punishment order liable to be set aside.

 

SOUMYA DATTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Service Law – Transfer of a bank employee – No government employee/officer can stay at a place/branch for an indefinite period – No merit in writ petition – Petitioner was sought to be moved out from local head office at Kolkata on completion of 3 years, which appears to be in consonance with clause 4.2 of model transfer policy – Just as an erroneous reference to a statutory provision does not vitiate any order if power is otherwise available in the statute, mere user of the word ‘transfer’ and not ‘posting’ in impugned order would not render it vulnerable having regard to clear terms of model transfer policy – Disinclined to hold having regard to said discussions that impugned order is actuated by mala fide of respondents 2 and 3 – Transfer orders issued by competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights – Writ Petition dismissed.

 

SHRI KRISHAN AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Constitution of India, Article 136 – Railway Establishment Manual, Rule 2831 – Service Law – Regularization – Employees working as cooks and helpers in the Mess/canteen of the S&T Training Centre Railway – The Tribunal held that petitioners are working in a non-statutory non-recognised canteen – Find no reason to interfere with the said finding in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution – Held that find no infirmity with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, dated 09.05.2014 and 30.03.2012, whereby the learned Judges upheld the view of the Tribunal stating that the petitioners-herein were working in a Non-statutory non-recognised canteen of the Railway Establishment and therefore would not be entitled to claim regularization of their services.

 

PHKIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. KHUM ANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH & ORS.

Constitution of India, Articles 14,16 and 226 – Service Law – Seniority list – Challenge as to seniority by the respondents-petitioner upheld by the High Court and direction given to frame fresh seniority list – Out of 10 writ petitioners 3 retired during pendency of writ petition – Remaining 7 making representation to convene DPC on the basis of old seniority list as they going to retire shortly – DPC convened and out of seven five writ petitioners promoted and two not found suitable – In view of the above subsequent events merits of the diverse contentions raised in the Appeal need not be examined – The impugned orders stand modified by treating the seniority list dated 27.11.1999 effective for the purposes of promotion as it has already been accepted by 7 writ petitioners.

 

HARADHAN MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Service Law – Pension – Retiral benefits – Denial of – Long uninterrupted service rendered by petitioner as seasonal Khalashi under Kangsabati Canals, Division No. 1 since 1st July, 1968 cannot be overlooked while calculating actual period of service of petitioner for purpose of granting benefit of usual pension and gratuity – A poor employee like petitioner, therefore, cannot be denied benefit of usual pension and other retiral benefits in spite of serving the same establishment continuously for a period of more than 35 years on plea that office order relating to permanent absorption of petitioner was issued at fag end of service career as a result whereof said petitioner, did not complete 10 years service period after issuing formal office order – Impugned order of Tribunal is set aside – Respondent Authorities are directed to grant usual pension and gratuity to petitioner before retirement on attaining age of superannuation – Writ Petition allowed.

 

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. P. GUNASEKARAN

Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 11(vii) – Disciplinary proceedings – Punishment – Compulsory retirement – Judicial review –The impugned conduct of the respondent working as Deputy Office Superintendent in a sensitive department of Central Excise, according to the disciplinary authority, reflected lack of integrity warranting discontinuance in service – That view has been endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also – Thereafter, it is not open to the High Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment.

 

STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. BHADEY MUNDA & ANR.

Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, Section 72 & 73 – Promotion – Conditions of service – Submission on behalf of appellant-Sate that the respondents had only a right to be considered for promotion, they did not have any right to get promoted; secondly, the service conditions of the respondents had not been varied to their detriment and therefore Section 73 of the Act had no application to the facts of the case; thirdly, a promotion can only be made if there is an existing vacancy. It was submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that there were existing vacancies in the post of General Manager/Deputy Director in the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, there is no question of promoting the respondents to that post held to be meritorious – The Jharkhand High Court could not have directed implementation of the recommendations of the DPC held on 15th February, 1999 that is from a date anterior to the date of the constitution of the Jharkhand High Court and the State of Jharkhand and the exercise of accepting the recommendation of the DPC from a date prior to the date of formation of the State of Jharkhand could have been taken only by the State of Bihar and not by the State of Jharkhand.

 

RADHARANJAN PATTANAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 300-A – Service Law – Pension – Employees of AERC – MOU between parties – Entitled to all service benefits including pension – Refusal to give pension is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Held that all employees of AERC who became employees of respondent No. 4/University by virtue of MOU were entitled to all service benefits including pension, as those available to other employees of respondent No.4/University – Refusal by respondent No.1 to give necessary budgetary allocation is also arbitrary hence also violative of Article 14 in view of categorical language of the MOU – Petitioners have enforceable legal rights which are violated – Impugned order is quashed – Directions issued – Writ Petition allowed.

 

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HARBANS LAL

Himachal Pradesh, Elementary Education Department, Physical Education Teacher Class-III (Non- Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010 – H.P. Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1973 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 226 – Service Law – “Batch wise” Appointment – Reckoning batch seniority of a candidate – Date on which candidate qualifies examination and not date on which he is admitted into academic session is relevant for construing expression “batch” /”batch wise” for appointment to public post – Admission of a candidate to an academic session on its commencement cannot be construed to be “batch” for purpose of public appointment for simple reason that as on date for consideration, candidate must have acquired eligibility criteria, which is a sine qua non for consideration to any public post – “Batch is only an identification of a group, which is fully eligible for consideration – Equality must precede any priority of seniority of a batch in public appointments, which is the Constitutional mandate of Article 14 – Doctrine of past practice is squarely applicable – Practice adopted by State over a continuous period of time, is accepted and codified with enactment of the “PET 2010 Rules”, found to be in consonance with the Constitutional principles considered – Reference is answered accordingly – Appeal disposed of.

 

RAKHAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 – Section 9 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Service Law – Appointment – Formal appointments for teaching and non-teaching staff of school – Directions issued – Petitioners were found to be organizing teachers and staff from inception of school – Found that, what Section 9 of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 stipulates is that if there is any vacancy in any recognised school, managing committee could only appoint a teacher on recommendation of School Service Commission – Held that after recognition of a private school posts of teaching and non-teaching staff became vacated immediately – School Service Commission should recommend petitioning teaching and non-teaching staff of school – Thereafter, Government should make formal appointments – Directed first, second and third respondents to approve existing managing committee of school – Writ Petition allowed.

 

SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 16 and 226 – Service Law – Transfer – Transfer against transfer policy – No compelling reasons given for transferring employees – Impugned transfer orders are vitiated and not sustainable – It is common case of petitioners that normal tenure of service at a particular station in government as well as in HPSEBL is three years – Petitioner was transferred at the stage when he had only one and half years remaining service – As per transfer policy applicable in HPSEBL petitioner was not to be transferred when he was so near to retirement or he was to be transferred to a station of his choice – There is specific pleading that many work inspectors are working at Dharampur for last more than 15 years – In these circumstances, it is not understandable as to what were compelling reasons for transferring three petitioners outside Dharampur Division – Impugned transfer order in each petition is quashed and set aside – All Petitions allowed.

 

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. Vs. C.S.R.K.S. MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICES, UTTARANCHAL

We are satisfied that it was the endeavour of the Government to determine fitness of Group `D’ employees, for onward promotion to the lowest rank of ministerial posts in Group `C’ service. We say so because, it is apparent to us, that Group `D’ posts comprise of posts in the nature of Peons, Messengers, Chaukidars, Malis, Farrashes, Sweepers, Watermen, Bhistis, Tindals, Thelamen, Recordfilters, Peon-Jamadars, Daftris, Book-binders, Cyclostyle Operators, Farrash-Jamadars, Sweeper-Jamadars and Head Malis. The nature of duties of the posts referred to hereinabove, are too well- known. Merely because an employee while holding a Group `D’ post has been discharging the duties, of the nature referred to above, it cannot be presumed that he/she is suitable for onward promotion to a ministerial post. It is, therefore, that while determining the issue of onward promotion to ministerial posts, the State Government issued inter alia the above two Government Orders extracted hereinabove. Thereby, it would be possible to determine the fitness of those who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for promotion. We are satisfied that the aforesaid two Government Orders squarely fall within the ambit of competence of the appointing authority, to determine the minimum fitness standards postulated under Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules.

 

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Vs. ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

High Court has given the respondents herein benefit of the order passed by the Court in earlier round of litigation filed by similarly situated persons. …. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India….. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence….. Therefore, not only there was unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appointment to give them the appointment as of today, i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above.

 

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Vs. PRONAB CHAKRABORTY

The High Court, having interpreted Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1971 Rules’), arrived at the conclusion, that departmental proceedings being conducted against an individual employee, could proceed further after the employee’s retirement, only when the allegations contained in the charges levelled against him, depict pecuniary loss to the State Government. The High Court further arrived at the conclusion, that since the charges levelled against the respondent herein, did not depict any pecuniary loss to the State Government, proceedings against the respondent could not continue after 31.01.2008. …. It is therefore apparent, that it is not only for pecuniary loss caused to the Government that proceedings can continue after the date of superannuation. An employee can be proceeded against, after the date of his retirement, on account of “… grave misconduct or negligence …”. Therefore, even in the absence of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, it is open to the employer to continue the departmental proceedings after the employee has retired from service….. In view of the above, we hereby set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.

 

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. ANITA AND OTHERS

A perusal of the speaking order passed by the DEO, inter alia, reveals, that the private respondents had been appointed in violation of the statutory rules regulating appointments to privately managed recognised schools….. we are of the view, that the private respondents do not satisfy the pre-condition of valid appointment expressed therein, inasmuch as, it was imperative for the Selection Committee, in the first instance, to consider only those candidates who possessed the qualification of JBT/ETT, and thereupon, posts that remained unfilled could be filled up with persons possessing higher qualifications, i.e., graduate/post graduate qualifications along with B.Ed. …. The Management had required the private respondents to discharge their duties, without the prior approval of the State Government. The Management should therefore bear the responsibility of shouldering the emoluments payable to the private respondents.

 

SURINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS.

The High Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 7660 of 2004, vide the impugned order dated 2.3.2009, arrived at the conclusion, that the appellant actually belonged to the “creamy layer”, and as such, was dis- entitled to be considered as a “backward class” candidate….. It will be sufficient to make a reference to the decision rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. State of Bihar (1995) 5 SCC 403, wherein this Court, having examined the Office Memorandum dated 8.9.1993, approved the same…. Thus viewed, we are satisfied that the individual’s income was not required to be clubbed with the income of his parents, while determining whether or not he was eligible to be granted a backward class certificate. The determination to the contrary by the High Court is liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside.

 

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. PREETAM SINGH AND OTHERS

A perusal of clause (f) of Section 95(1), with clause (I) of Section 95(1) would reveal, that the Vikas Parishad is vested with the right to make regulations, so as to extend to its employees a scheme in the nature of Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme i.e., a scheme similar to the one framed by the Vikas Parishad on 19.5.2009….. Since we have now affirmed the impugned judgment of the High Court, dated 16.1.2009, it is apparent that all the eligible employees of the Vikas Parishad will be governed by the notification dated 19.5.2009. They will therefore be entitled to pensionery benefits from the date of their retirement. Undoubtedly, they have been denied the said retiral benefits, consequent upon the interim orders passed by this Court, at the behest of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the above view of the matter, we direct the Vikas Parishad to release the pensionery benefits to the retired employees governed by the notification dated 19.5.2009, within three months from today.

 

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Vs. RAMANAND PANDEY

Even when the respondent was relieved from the office at District Bhind on July 06, 2006, not only he did not join the duties at Sagar, it is more than one month thereafter, i.e. on August 14, 2006, he gave the representation. Further, he returned the promotion order, in original. It is clear that he wanted to remain in District Bhind, where he had continued since 1990, as he was ready to go on leave instead of joining the place of transfer. Moreover, for more than two years from the date of cancellation of the order of promotion, the respondent kept totally mum and maintained stoic silence….. As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly erroneous and against the law. The same is, accordingly, reversed. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court is dismissed.

 

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. Vs. TILAK RAJ

It is also clear that disputed question of facts were involved in the petitions because according to the respondents, who were petitioners before the High Court, nature of work done by them was similar to that of the work of other Laboratory Attendants or Laboratory Assistants. Without looking at the nature of work done by persons working in different cadres in different departments, one cannot jump to a conclusion that all these persons were doing similar type of work simply because in a civil suit, one particular person had succeeded after adducing evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the High Court had examined the nature of work done by the respondents and other persons who were getting higher pay scale. The High Court had also not considered the fact that qualifications required for appointment to both the posts were different. In our opinion, the High Court should not have entertained all these petitions where disputed questions of fact were required to be examined. …. we are of the view that the respondents could not have been awarded higher pay scale simply because Shri Gurdev had succeeded in a civil suit filed by him. The impugned judgments, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside. We, however, clarify that if the respondents are aggrieved by the salary which is paid to them, it is open to them to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.

 

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD NOW PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. Vs. RAJ KUMAR GOEL

Coming to the facts of the present case, it can be stated with certitude that the trial Court as well as the High Court has fallen into error by opining that if the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect is imposed for a period of five years, increment is warranted to be released by the end of the year. It is an erroneous perception of the nature of punishment. When there is a stoppage of five annual increments the same are not paid during the said period and thereafter in the sixth year the increments are added up to the regular annual increment. The employee does not get the arrears. But if the punishment is not one of stoppage of increment simpliciter the employee loses the benefit in perpetuity and after expiry of five years he would start earning the increment without any addition and it would start afresh from the first stage because it is a permanent postponement.

 

ASIS KUMAR SAMANTA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

It was only thereafter the selection process for promotion commenced. It was for this reason that the Public Service Commission recommended that private respondents be given retrospective seniority with effect from 31.12.1990. As per Rule 6(2) of the W.B. Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981 (for short, ’1981 Rules’) the promotees shall be en-bloc senior to the direct recruits of the same year, the private respondents in the writ petition were given notional seniority with effect from 01.01.1990. …. The private respondents could not have been made to suffer because of intervention by the court by way of interim relief. The State Government was not in a position to proceed with the selection by way of promotion under the Rules in view of the stay order passed by the court. No sooner the stay order was vacated, the process for the selection by way of promotion commenced. The impugned seniority list cannot, in these circumstances, be said to be legally flawed.

 

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. ATUL SHUKLA ETC.

The solitary question that falls for our consideration, therefore, is whether the respondents who at the relevant point of time held the rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) in the Indian Air Force were entitled to continue in service upto 54 and 57 years depending upon whether they were serving in the flying or ground duty branch of the force….. Suffice it to say that the basis for classification in question for purposes of age of superannuation which the appellant has projected is much too tenuous to be accepted as a valid basis for giving to the Time Scale Officers a treatment different from the one given to the Select Officers. We are also of the view that concerns arising from a parity in the retirement age of Time Scale and Select Officers too are more perceptional than real. At any rate, such concerns remain to be substantiated on the basis of any empirical data. The upshot of the above discussion is that the classification made by the Government of India for purposes of different retirement age for Time Scale Officers and Select Officers does not stand scrutiny on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as rightly held by the Tribunal.

 

VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

All the charges against the appellant are in connection with the filing of the said Writ Petition on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner is violative of the various CONDUCT Rules….. The rule only prohibits a member of the service from having recourse either to a Court or to the press for vindication of the official acts of such member which have been the subject matter of adverse criticism or a defamatory attack. It is not the content of any one of the charges against the appellant that he sought to vindicate any one of his official acts by filing WP (C) No. 37 of 2010. …. We are at a loss to comprehend how the filing of the writ petition containing allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging its constitutional obligations of establishing the rule of law can be said to amount to either failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct unbecoming of a member of the service. …. The Constitution declares that India is a sovereign democratic Republic. The requirement of such democratic republic is that every action of the State is to be informed with reason. State is not a hierarchy of regressively genuflecting coterie of bureaucracy. …. The right to judicial remedies for the redressal of either personal or public grievances is a constitutional right of the subjects (both citizens and non-citizens) of this country. Employees of the State cannot become members of a different and inferior class to whom such right is not available. …. The respondents consider that a complaint to this Court of executive malfeasance causing debilitating economic and security concerns for the country amounts to inappropriate conduct for a civil servant is astounding. …. The respondents are liable jointly and severally to pay costs to the appellant which is quantified at Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs).

 

ABHAY KUMAR SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

whether the height can be the sole criteria for the selection of a police constable….. In our opinion, once a candidate has the minimum height as required by the relevant Rules, height then becomes an irrelevant consideration and other criteria should be taken into consideration, like intelligence, physical strength, etc. In this case, the selection amongst those who had the minimum height was done by only selecting the tallest candidates for the available vacancies. We are of the opinion that this was wholly arbitrary, and police constables must also have intelligence and other requirements, apart from height….. whether the criteria adopted in making the selection on the basis of more height of candidates was valid, the fact remains that the appellants were held to have manipulated and got their height wrongly recorded more than their actual height. At the same time, responsibility for correct recording of the height was of the Department and after the appellants were duly selected and appointed, and were in service for four years, their termination, in facts and circumstances, would be too harsh. In these circumstances while we are not inclined to reinstate the appellants with back wages and continuity of service, we direct that the appellants be given fresh appointment as constables against available vacancies within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

 

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NATVARLAL MOTILAL CHAVDA

High Court was of the opinion that promotion of respondent no. 1 should not be withheld merely because of the reason that much after the meeting of the Selection Committee, a charge- sheet was served upon him….. Thus, the effect of the aforesaid direction giving him the relief only in case he is exonerated under the departmental inquiry would be that respondent no. 1 would be entitled to promotion, and the consequential benefit in case the penalty imposed against him stands. In view of that, it may not be necessary to entertain this petition in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

 

 

SECR., GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Vs. GRADE-I DASS OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS.

In view of stipulations and conditions in the ACPS noticed above, it can be safely concluded that the financial upgradation under the ACPS is not only in lieu of but also in anticipation of regular promotion. In such a situation, the contention advanced on behalf of Appellants that financial upgradation claimed by the Respondents cannot be granted because the same would be much in excess of what the officer would gain on actual promotion in the hierarchy, is found to have substance….. Fairness on part of State is a constitutional obligation and hence a pay scale, which regularly promoted employee earlier belonging to Grade I (DASS) could not get due to established hierarchy for promotion, cannot be granted to those like the Respondents on the plea that the financial upgradation to which they are found entitled as per existing hierarchy is too meagre. In case Respondents’ claim was to be allowed on the ground accepted by the High Court that financial upgradation must be real and substantial, in case of regular promotion in future, employees like the Respondents would have to be reduced in their pay scale because actual or functional promotion as per established hierarchy can be only on a post in Grade II (Group B) in DANICS. …. The judgment of the High Court under appeal is set aside and as a result, the writ petitions preferred by the Respondents shall stand dismissed.

 

K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR. ETC.

These appeals are further additions to the long list of service matters decided by High Courts and this Court resolving disputes between “Diploma Holder” and “Degree Holder” Engineers in the matter of eligibility for further promotion. All the appellants belonged to the category of degree holder engineers appointed as Project Engineers (Junior) in the service of Rajasthan Housing Board (for sake of brevity referred to as ‘the Board’). The contesting respondents also held the same post but initially only as diploma holder who later acquired qualification of AMIE which is admittedly equivalent to degree in Engineering. …. We hold that the Project Engineers (Junior) recruited on the basis of diploma, upon their acquiring the qualification of ‘AMIE’, are not entitled to count their experience of service prior to acquisition of such qualification for the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) against the 20% quota fixed for promotion of degree holder Project Engineers (Junior). In order to claim promotion against such 20% quota the three years’ experience of service must be acquired after obtaining the qualification or degree of AMIE.

 

 

NTPC KAHALAGAON & ORS. Vs. NAKUL DAS & ORS.

The persons who were selected were admittedly eligible to be considered as they were also Land Oustees. No doubt, the posts were not advertised by publication in the newspapers. Facts remains that only two persons namely respondent Nos.1 and 2 made a grievance in this behalf. These two persons have also been considered for the posts under the orders of this Court. However, they have failed in the selection. Others who were selected have already joined the posts. In a matter like this, no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the directions of the High Court to have fresh selection process after issuing advertisements in the newspapers. …. We may record at this stage that about 70 other persons have also filed I.A.’s supporting the stand of respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, it is of significance to mention that all these persons had duly participated in the selection process but could not make their mark and failed to get selected. Therefore, these persons have no right to raise any grievance about non-publication of the advertisement in the newspapers. …. we find that there is no necessity to carry out any fresh selection process as directed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The appeals are allowed and the direction is set aside.

 

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. TRIVENI SHARAN MISHRA

whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and the writ petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. It is further directed by the High Court that the appellant may consider to impose the penalty against the present respondent as was awarded in the case of Daluram Patidar, another employee of the appellant-Corporation….. From the papers on record before us, it appears that for mentioning less qualification to secure the job, similarly situated another employee (one Daluram Patidar) was let off by the Life Insurance Corporation of India by awarding punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly taken note of said fact while allowing the writ petition, and directing the employer to consider the imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of the writ petitioner.

 

VIRESHWAR SINGH & ORS. Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

The appellants are General Duty Medical Officers (GDMO) Grade-II who were appointed on ad hoc basis between 1986 and 1989. They are aggrieved by the denial of their claim to regularization with effect from the dates of their initial appointments. Regularization granted from the date of the recommendations of the Union Public Service commission (for short ‘UPSC’), namely, 24.07.1998 as approved by the High Court of Delhi by means of the impugned order dated 05.07.2011 has been called into question in the present appeal. …. Both sets of GDMOs i.e. in Phase-I and Phase-II were not appointed on the basis of a selection held by the UPSC as mandated by the Regulations in force. Their appointments were recommended by a Specially Constituted Selection Committee. Their appointments were ad hoc; initially for a period of six months which was subsequently extended from time to time. Being similarly circumstanced, undoubtedly, both sets of GDMOs will have to be treated equally and evenly for the purpose of regularization. …. If the GDMOs appointed in Phase-II are similarly circumstanced as Dr. Anuradha Bodi and others, we fail to see how their claim to regularization with effect from the date of their initial appointments can be countenanced…. we do not find any merit or substance in the appeals under consideration. They are, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs.

 

Our team having top lawyer of Rajasthan High Court in jaipur Best advocate in jaipur, Best lawyer in jaipur, Best law firm in jaipur, Best legal consultant in jaipur, Top lawyer in jaipur, Top advocate in jaipur, Top law firm in jaipur, Best criminal lawyer in jaipur, Top criminal lawyer in jaipur, Best civil advocate in jaipur, Top civil advocate in jaipur, Best labour advocate in jaipur, Top labour lawyer in jaipur, Best Commercial Lawyer in jaipur, Best revenue advocate lawyer in jaipur, Best divorce advocate lawyer in jaipur, Best real state advocate lawyer in jaipur, Best constitutional advocate lawyer in jaipur, Best motor accidental advocate lawyer for MACT cases in jaipur, Best matrimonial advocate lawyer in jaipur, best Military advocate lawyer best Air Force advocate lawyer in jaipur best Army advocate lawyer in jaipur best Navy advocate lawyer in jaipur best BSF CRPF SSB CISF advocate lawyer in jaipur best court martial advocate lawyer in jaipur in rajasthan best court martial defense lawyer advocate in jaipur best advocate lawyer for service matter in jaipur best pollution environmental matter advocate lawyer in jaipur best advocate for copy right matters lawyer advocate best service matter Lawyer advocate best advocate lawyer for corruption matter in jaipur best public interest litigation (PIL) lawyer advocate best advocate lawyer of Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court in Jaipur/Rajasthan/India.