Blog - Page 177 of 1820

29 Nov

There Is No Case Of As He Approached The Court After 13 Years: Patna High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #judgement, #law, #LegalPost

Citation: CWJC No.17367 of 2019

Decided On: 31-10-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

Introduction:

The petitioner submits that the grievances of the petitioner are very limited as the railway authorities have already issued an appointment letter and directed the petitioner to join on Class-IV post but the petitioner did not appear in the office for joining. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed CWJC No. 13981/2016 which was disposed.

Facts:

The writ was dismissed with a direction to the concerned authority that if the petitioners except Mukesh Kumar file application before the competent authority along with supportive documents for appointment on Group-C/Group-D post in Indian Railway in lieu of acquisition of their lands for construction of Road-cum-Railway Bridge over river Ganga near Digha-Sonepur, the authority shall consider their case and pass order within four months from the date of filing of such representation. Mukesh Kumar is concerned, his case was considered by the competent authority and appointment letter was issued for appointment but the petitioner did not join on Group-C/Group-D post on account of illness of his mother, who consequently died of cancer but no order on his petition for extension of the period of his joining was passed.

The specific direction was given to the authority to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and pass an order in accordance with law within four months. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner has been communicated a letter dated 03.06.2019, as contained in Annexure-R/E rejecting his claim being time-barred, but the authority while rejecting his claim did not consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically in the light of the direction of the Hon’ble Court.

Learned counsel for the Union of India representing Railways submits that the claim of the petitioner for employment was in lieu of acquisition of his land for construction of Road-cum-Railway Bridge over river Ganga near Digha-Sonepur has already been considered by the Railway authority and the same has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.06.2007 which is Annexure R/A in which direction was made to him to report to the office of the Divisional Rail Manager, Personal Sonepur on 12.07.2007 along with two passport size photographs for his appointment in Grade-D category but the petitioner did not opt to appear.

Petitioner has requested for extension of time for reporting till 2009 on the grounds of his completion of engineering course. Subsequently, the Railway authority informed the petitioner vide letter dated 26.09.2007 to receive an appointment letter forthwith as according to the guidelines issued by the Rail Parishad/ Headquarter, he has to join within two years, but petitioner did not join. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the year 2018 in which the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the order

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

It transpires to the Court that the petitioner was entitled to appointment and was called for joining in the year 2007 itself. The petitioner was also informed that the said appointment letter is valid for two years only, but he demanded employment after the lapse of 13 years. the petitioner is a graduate engineer from the mechanical branch and has completed his study in B.Sc. Engineering in the years 2010. In this background that the petitioner is a graduate engineer and is interested to join on the Group-D post for which an offer was made to him to join 13 years back including an extension of two years from the date of the letter of joining issued in the year 2007, this Court was in the view that the petitioner has no case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By : Sushant Kumar Sharma

click here to view judgement

29 Nov

Director told to look into the claim regarding the appointment as Panchayat Teacher: Patna High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #judgment, #law, #LegalPost

Citation: CWJC No.2821 of 2019

Decided on: 31-10-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha

Introduction :

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner died in harness on 15.02.2014 while he was working as Class-IV employee in High School, Fatehpur, Patna. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground 04.08.2015 before the Headmaster of Rajkiyakrit Chhatriya Uchch Vidyalaya, Fatehpur, Patna.

Facts:

The District Programme Office (Establishment), Patna, vide letter dated 04.09.2015, replied to the Headmaster that in view of the Government letter dated 22.06.2009, the appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner cannot be acted upon since intermediate qualification is essential for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher/ Prakhand Teacher and therefore, the case of the petitioner could not be considered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the order dated 29.02.2019 passed in this case, submits that a categorical statement was made by the petitioner that she is willing to be appointed on Class-IV post. He also relied upon an order dated 03.03.2020, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 1065 of 2017 and other analogous cases to submit that the Education Department constituted Four Member High Power Committee and the Committee, after due deliberation, submitted recommendations vide Memo no. 1275 dated 26.09.2019 that the case of the dependent shall be considered for appointment on Class-III and Class-IV post, if they do not fulfill the eligibility condition for appointment as Panchayat Teacher.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna is directed to take proper decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on Class-IV post in light of recommendation of the High Power Committee, as contained in Memo no. 1275 dated 26.09.2019, within a maximum period of four months. With that the writ petition is disposed.

Written By : Sushant Kumar Sharma

click here to view judgement

29 Nov

The Kerala High Court held that Natural justice principles are essential for transferring orders, preventing stigma and bias.

Prime Legal

Blog #bias, #keralahighcourt, #naturaljustice

Title: The Corporate Manager v. Beena Hilkushi and Ors.
Decided on: 23 November, 2023

+ WA NO. 2001/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen

Introduction

Recently, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court affirmed a Single Judge’s decision to revoke a teacher employed by Corporate Managers’ transfer order.

Facts of the Case

After receiving complaints from pupils, the school manager filed an appeal against the quashing of the transfer order, claiming that the order was made because of the teacher’s wrongdoing.

Courts analysis and decision

The court emphasized that in order to avoid bias or prejudice during the transfer order-issuing process, natural justice principles must be incorporated into statute provisions. The writ appeal was therefore denied.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view to your judgement

29 Nov

The Kerala High Court holds that the person with a better title and sufficient symbolic production may be granted interim custody of an elephant

Prime Legal

Blog #interimcustody, #keralahighcourt, #wildlife

Title: Jayakrishna Menon v State of Kerala

Decided on: 20 November, 2023

+ CRL.MC NO. 7600 OF 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice P.V.Kunhikrishna

Introduction

According to a recent ruling by the Kerala High Court, the person with a better title may receive temporary custody of property that is submitted before the Trial Court during an inquiry or trial conducted under Section 451 CrPC.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner contended that the third respondent was given custody of the Madom’s elephant, Raman, when it began exhibiting signs of musth. He stated that he learned that the third respondent’s staff and mahouts were harassing the elephant through social media and other sources. The petitioner then filed a First Information Report (FIR), claiming that offenses under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust punishment) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing handover of property) of the IPC had been committed, and that Section 451 CrPC applied for interim custody of the elephant. The third respondent presented documents to support his claim that the Amrithanandamayi Madom gave him the elephant as a gift.

Courts analysis and decision

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 39(3), which forbade the transfer, sale, or gift of wild animals without the express consent of the Chief Wildlife Warden or another designated authority, was also cited by the court. It took into consideration Section 43(1) of the Act, which forbade the transfer of wild animals by means of an offer for sale or by any other form of payment involving commerce. It concluded, therefore, that the laws’ purpose was to forbid the sale of elephants for profit. As a result, the Court said that it was evident from the records that the petitioner was the rightful owner of the elephant, with the third respondent’s ownership being contested. As a result, it overturned the magistrate’s decision and ordered a reexamination of the petitioner’s case.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

29 Nov

“Apex Court Overturns Labour Court Decision: Upholds Employer’s Position on Workman’s Engagement and Onus of Proof.”

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #JUSTICE, #labour, #law

Title: Shambhu Lal vs Union Of India

Citation: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14655/2022

Coram: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

Decided on: 17/05/23

Introduction:

The writ petition challenges the judgment dated 12.07.2022 from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. In this judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications (‘OAs’) filed by the petitioners. The OAs contested the verbal termination orders dated 30.06.1992/01.07.1992.

Facts:

The writ petition challenges a judgment from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dated 12.07.2022, which dismissed Original Applications (‘OAs’) filed by the petitioners contesting their verbal termination orders dated 30.06.1992/01.07.1992. The petitioners argue that the Tribunal erred in fact and law, asserting that the termination was malicious. They claim that the recruitment advertisement issued on 23.03.1991 was for short-term positions on sanctioned posts, not contractual employment. The petitioners allege no prior notice before termination, having worked more than 240 days in the twelve preceding months. They argue that since posts were available until 31.12.1993, terminating their services before this date is illegal.

The case history involves previous litigations, including a writ petition in 1992, an industrial dispute leading to a negative award in 2012, and subsequent writ petitions dismissed in 2017. The Division Bench granted liberty to the petitioners to challenge the termination order, leading to the filing of OAs before the Tribunal, ultimately dismissed on 22.07.2022.

Judgement analysis:

In this case, the Labour Court found a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, directing the reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages. The employer’s writ petition challenging this decision was dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the award. The employer appealed to the Apex Court, arguing that both the Labour Court and the High Court erred in relying on factually and legally erroneous premises. The employer contended that the workman was engaged on a casual basis with daily wages for specific work and a specified period, falling under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act. The employer claimed that the details in this regard were undisputedly filed. The Apex Court, referencing precedents, held that the relief granted by the Labour Court and the High Court cannot be maintained.

Additionally, the Apex Court emphasized that the onus regarding working for more than 240 days rests on the workman, citing precedent. The Court allowed the appeal filed by the management, overturning the decisions of the Labour Court and the High Court.

The judgment concludes by stating that, based on the discussions, there is no case favoring the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. This analysis highlights the Apex Court’s scrutiny of factual and legal aspects, emphasizing the employer’s position regarding the nature of the workman’s engagement and the onus of proof on the workman.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

click here to view judgement

1 … 175 176 177 178 179 … 1,820