0

Supreme Court Directs the High Court to Re-examine Employee Regularization Dispute: Requested the High Court to Expedite the Prolonged Litigation

Blog, Bombay High Court, Supreme court, Uncategorized , , ,

Case Title – Solapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Shankarrao Govindrao Patil & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 423

Case Number – Civil Appeal No. 9127-9132/2018 with Civil Appeal No. 9133/2018

Dated on – 15th May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Sanjay Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Solapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Shankarrao Govindrao Patil & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 423, the Solapur Municipal Corporation, herein the Appellant, instituted six appeals against a judgment dated 31st of July, 2013, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which allowed the Writ Petition Nos. 197/2012, 2011/2003 and 2432/2003. The decision of the High Court recognized the Respondents, former employees of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat (merged with the Solapur Municipal Corporation), as having been absorbed by the corporation from the 5th of May, 1992 and entitled to regular service benefits. A subsequent order dated 8th of August, 1992 dismissed the review petitions filed by the Corporation. Another writ petition, W.P. No. 2463/2010, followed the same judgment, and the Corporation instituted a Civil Appeal No. 9133/2018 against this decision.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Respondents, employees of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat, were regular employees entitled to absorption by Solapur Municipal Corporation from the date of the merger on the 5th of August, 1992?
Whether the services of the Respondents from the dated 5th of May, 1992 to 1st of February,2003 should be treated as a regular service with the Corporation?
Whether the Respondents were entitled to service and retirement benefits based on the claim that their service should be deemed regular from the merger date?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 493(5)(C) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 stated that all officers and servants in the employ of the said municipality or local authority immediately before the appointed day shall be officers and servants employed by the Corporation under this Act and shall, until other provision is made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, receive salaries and allowances and be subject to the conditions of service to which they were entitled or subject on such date
Section 493 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 prescribes the Continuation of appointments, taxes, budget estimates, assessments, etc.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Special Leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Respondents were daily wage workers until the 1st of February, 2003 and not regular employees from the 5th of May, 1992.
The Appellant referred to a corporation resolution dated 31st of August, 2002, which made the 300 employees permanent only from the date of government approval i.e., the 25th of March, 2003 and clarified that the arrears for earlier periods were not permissible.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that they were regular employees of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat before the merger, thereby entitling them to regularization from the 5th of May, 1992 under Section 493(5)(C) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
A resolution was produced by the Respondents from the Majarewadi Gram Panchayat dated 20th of March, 1992, indicating the permanent appointments of employees from the 31st of March, 1992 and individual appointment orders as proof of their regular employment status.
It was asserted that their service from the merger date till their regularization in 2003 should be considered continuous and regular, thus entitling them to full-service benefits.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Solapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Shankarrao Govindrao Patil & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 423, examined the Section 493 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, especially the clause 5(C) in Appendix IV, which addresses the continuation of appointments and conditions of service for employees of merged municipalities. The court observed the new documentary evidences furnished by the Respondents, inclusive of the resolutions and appointment orders, which were not previously considered by the High Court. The court observed that the High Court had based its judgment on an affidavit and the sanction of 300 posts but did not have the opportunity to scrutinize the new judgments. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 31st of July, 2013 and the 8th of August, 2014 and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the new documents. The court permitted both the parties to submit further documentary evidence. The High Court was requested to prioritize and expedite the case, taking into consideration the prolonged nature of the litigation. Each party was to bear its own cost and all pending applications were disposed of.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

“Bombay High Court Confirmed Civil Judge’s Removal from Service: Upholding Judicial Integrity Through Substantial Evidence of Misconduct and the Importance of Upholding Judicial Integrity.”

Blog, Bombay High Court , , , ,

Case Title – Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr.

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 15539 of 2022

Dated on – 23rd April,2024

Quorum – Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr., Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, the Appellant in the said case, was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division on 19th of March,2010. During the term of Aniruddha’s serving as the Civil Judge Junior Division, several complaints were instituted against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak stating his misbehaviour, absenteeism and presiding over the court under the due influence of alcohol. Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak’s misconducted was highlighted from the reports of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nandurbar and the Shahada Bar Association. A discerning inquiry was conducted by the District Judge, Jalgaon during which it was observed that Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak’s behaviour was irregular which included not following court timings and wandering around in the near vicinity of the court. On dated 6th of January, 2018, Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak was involved himself in a serious incident at the Maharashtra Judicial Academy at Uttan, where he was spotted in an intoxicated state during a mediation course. Subsequently, he was relieved from the course. Charges were framed against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, which comprised of not following court timings, defection of duty, and being inebriated during the official duties. An inquiry committee found Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak guilty of charges 1,6 and 7 leading to his removal from the Judicial Service under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the order of disposition was based on conjectures and lacked concrete evidences.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the Appellant was not adequately examined after the incident at Uttan and that the testimonies of the witnesses were conflicting.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the punishment of disposal from the position of power was disproportionate to the charges against him.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case relied on the past judgment of the court, including the Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao Naiknimbalkar Vs. Governor, State of Maharashtra, Bombay & Ors. And Rahul s/o Abhimanyu Ranpise Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., to support the contentions of the Appellant.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented while supporting the order of disposal of the Appellant, that the court should emphasize on the need for judges to uphold high standards of conduct.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the evidences clearly established the misconduct and inadequate behaviour of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak while presiding over the court as well as in the vicinity of the court, justifying his disposition from the Judicial Services.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case cited the seriousness of the charges and the importance of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Power of the Courts to issue Writs.
  2. Rule 5 (1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 governs the removal of the civil servants for misconduct.

ISSUES

  1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether the charges against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak were proven?
  2. Whether the punishment of disposition of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak was proportionate to the charges imposed on him?
  3. Whether there were any irregularities in the procedure in the disciplinary process?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr., recognised the narrow scope of the Judicial Review in the matter of services, stating that interference is warranted only if there are irregularities in the procedures or arbitrariness in the decision making. The court referred to the precedents and replicated the duty of the judiciary to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct. The court observed that the charges against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, including not following the timings of the court and being inebriated while presiding over the court were supported with substantial evidences. The court, considering the grave nature of the charges and the significance of judicial integrity, rejected the contentions of the Appellant that the punishment of disposition was disproportionate. The court in the present case, held that there were no irregularities in the procedures followed in the disciplinary process and that the decision of disposition of the Appellant from the service was justified. The court overturned and deemed inapplicable, all the precedents cited by the appellant, further strengthening the case of the disposition of the Appellant. The court, in the end, dismissed the Writ Petition instituted by the Appellant, upholding the decision of the disposition of the Appellant from the judicial services.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

11

Bombay High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to formulate SOP in order to avoid the need for Court’s approval in MTP exceeding 24 Weeks

Blog , , , , , , , , , , 11

Case title: ABC Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Case no.: Writ Petition No. 2319 of 2024

Decision on: April 5th, 2024

Quoram: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Nitin W Sambre

Facts of the case

The petitioner had filed a writ under Article 226 and sought the Court to direct the respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination of pregnancy on the ground of carrying abnormal foetus. Considering the fact that her pregnancy had exceeded twenty four weeks, the Court directed the Civil Surgeon to conduct a medical examination and submit a report.

The Medical Board at the General Hospital, Wardha, comprising nine doctors and one matron, conducted the examination and submitted its report, confirming the abnormalities in the foetus. The Report of the Medical Board revealed that continuation of pregnancy of petitioner who is thirty two weeks pregnant would result in grave injury to her mental health and also involve substantial risks as to physical abnormalities of her child, if born. The Medical Board thus recommended for the termination of pregnancy.

Issue – Medical Termination of Pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks in case of carrying abnormal foetus.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court delved into Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and noted that a pregnancy with a length of twenty weeks may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner and where the length of pregnancy is between twenty and twenty four weeks by two registered practitioners. Further, it also highlighted the exception carved out under sub-section 2B of Section 3, which permitted the termination of pregnancy exceeding twenty-four weeks if the diagnosis by Medical Board suggests that continuance of the same would lead to substantial foetal abnormalities. In view of the above statutory provisions, the Court directed the Management of the Hospital to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner.

However in the course of passing the order, it also observed averments on the Doctors of General Hospital, Wardha. The Court noted that despite the provision of the MTP Act and the MTP Rules, 2003, which laid down mandate as to the termination of pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks, the doctors ignored the referral to a Medical Board in such cases and forced the petitioner to seek the permission of the court to terminate her pregnancy.

In light of the above analysis, the Court directed the Department of Public Health and the Department of Medical Education and Drugs of the State of Maharashtra to formulate Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and issue the same to all government hospitals and medical colleges in the State of Maharashtra in order to avoid the need for Court’s approval in such matters. It also took into account the petitioner’s financial constraints and directed the Management of General Hospital, Wardha to bear all the expenses related to hospitalization, procedures, and medicines. Thereby, posted the matter on June 12th, 2024.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Bombay High court passes judgement through video conference, considering petitioner’s unique circumstance.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Sharma Mansotra vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr 

Case No: WP ST. NO. 134 OF 2024

Decided on: 08.01.2024

CORAM: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Karnik

 

 Facts of the Case

The present Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by an order dated 30/10/2023, passed by the Special Court for CBI.

Accused in a CBI case pending since 2013, the petitioner, due to a recent accident, is bedridden and suffers memory issues related to his brain injury. As his health impedes travel, he opposes the court’s directive to visit AIMS Hospital in Delhi for a medical assessment. Instead, he proposes recording his evidence remotely through video conferencing available at the Mumbai court. Recognizing jurisdictional limitations, the High Court urges the Panipat Principal District Judge to consider allowing video conferencing for the petitioner’s evidence recording in Mumbai. The Mumbai court will inform Panipat of the scheduled date. The AIMS Hospital visit is deemed unnecessary and the order is quashed. The petitioner’s lawyer can be present during the remote evidence recording. With these conditions, the petition is granted. Section 313 statement has been recorded through video conferencing and now the case is posted for judgment.

Legal provisions

Section 353 of CrPC –

This section details the pronouncement of judgments in criminal trials. It states that judgments must be announced in open court by the presiding officer, either through full reading, reading only the operative part and explaining the rest in understandable language, or delivering the entire judgment.

This section emphasizes transparency and accessibility of judgments for all parties involved.

Issue

Whether a judgment can be pronounced remotely through video conferencing, even though Section 353 of the CrPC mandates the accused’s physical presence?

Court Decision and analysis

Chapter XXVII of the CrPC, covering judgments, in response to the petitioner’s absence, the trial court issued a non-bailable warrant.

While the accused is normally expected to be present in court for judgment, considering the petitioner’s unique circumstances, the court allowed him to attend through video conferencing.

Reasons for this exception:

  • The petitioner has an 83% physical disability and has consistently attended previous hearings remotely since 2010.
  • Medical evidence supports his limited mobility.
  • He promises to abide by any judgment and offers no risk of absconding.

Conditions for remote attendance:

  • The petitioner’s son will arrange his video conference presence at the Panipat District Court.
  • CBI officers escorting him will ensure no tampering.
  • The petitioner accepts any potential consequences of the judgment.

This decision prioritized justice over technical requirements, recognizing the individual’s situation while upholding legal procedures.

“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 falls into the 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- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

0

In a case where the offence is charged in both POCSO and SCST Act, The jurisdiction to try the offence lie with POCSO : Bombay HC

Blog , , , , ,

TITLE : Aniket v State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Mangesh S Patil, Hon’ble Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hon’ble Justice R.G Avachatt

DATE :  19th December, 2023

CITATION : Criminal Application no 2173 of 2023

FACTS

A crime was registered against Aniket, petitioner for offences punishable under Section 363, 376 and 376(3) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Additionally, Section 3 of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be invoked. He appeared in front of Section 483 of CrPC was turned down by sessions judge. He appealed in front of this court under the same section. The mother of the victim raised objections as to maintainability of the said application. According to her, in view of Section 14-A(2) of the S.C & ST act, remedy of appeal under special court is already provided and thus is not maintainable.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 14-A(2) states that of the SCST Act states that :

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

Section 483 of CrPC states that :

  1. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates. Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.

Section 42-A of the POCSO Act states that If there is any law or act in derogation with POCSO Act, it will subside as POCSO Act has overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of inconsistency.

Section 28(2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence {other than the offence referred to in sub-section (j), with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial.

ISSUES

Whether interpretation that Section 42-A of POCSO Act shall prevail over Section 14-A of Atrocities Act, in the matter of grant or refusal of bail, would result into abrogating right of victim, to prefer an appeal under Section 14-A of Atrocities Act against grant of bail to accused ?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that Special court constituted under POCSO Act has jurisdiction to try offences under any other Act including SCST Act. The reverse is not the same, by virtue of Section 42-A of POCSO Act as SCST act being inconsistent with Section 28(2) of the POCSO Act.

The court stated that :

“We fail to understand as to why the provision, “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973” has been prefixed to the further provision of sub-section (2) of Section 14-A.”

In a case wherein the accused is charged with offences under both, S.C. & S.T. Act and POCSO Act, the jurisdiction to try the said offence would exclusively be with a Special Court constituted under Section 28 of the POCSO Act.

“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- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3 … 10