0

Delhi High Court Denies Additional Increment to Employees Due to Non-fulfilment of Eligibility Criteria

Title:  FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs SMT. SUNITA KUMARI & ANR

Decided on:  10th August, 2023

+  LPA 62/2020 & CM APPLs. 4141/2020, 4142/2020

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA 

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently ruled on a case involving the eligibility for an additional increment under the Stagnation Impact Amelioration Scheme, 2014 (SIA Scheme). The court held that the respondents, who had not completed six years of regular service in their previous post before being promoted to a higher post, were not eligible for the benefit of an additional increment as per the SIA Scheme.

Facts

The respondents were initially appointed to the post of Assistant Grade – III (Accounts) and later promoted to the post of AG – II (Accounts) after which they were further promoted to the post of AG – I (Accounts). The Stagnation Impact Amelioration Scheme, 2014 was introduced to provide additional increments to eligible employees on stagnation after completion of specific years of regular service in the same post/pay scale.

Analysis

The respondents requested an additional increment under the SIA Scheme, arguing that the delay in their promotion was not their fault. However, the appellant declined the request, and the respondents sought the benefit through a petition. The High Court analyzed the eligibility criteria under the SIA Scheme and noted that additional increments were granted to employees who had completed 6, 12, and 20 years of regular service in the same scale. The scheme stated that the additional increment would be applicable from the day next to the actual completion of the required years of service.

The Court also highlighted Clause 22 of the scheme, which specified that the benefit of the additional increment would only be given to those who couldn’t be promoted due to non-availability of vacancies or administrative reasons.

Held

The Court observed that the respondents had not completed six years of regular service in their previous post before being promoted to AG – I (Accounts). Additionally, the SIA Scheme was not in existence before September 1, 2008, and the respondents’ promotion was before this date. As a result, the Court held that the respondents were not eligible for the additional increment under the SIA Scheme as per the scheme’s criteria. Clause 22 or any other provision of the scheme couldn’t be applied retrospectively for the period when the scheme wasn’t even in place.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to the eligibility criteria stipulated under specific schemes. It highlights the need to interpret such schemes based on their effective dates and the existence of necessary conditions at the time of promotion or implementation.

“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- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

0

Punjab high court considers ripe age and reduces the sentence of the accused.

TITLE: Ram Saran v State of Haryana

Decided On-:  May 03, 2023

CRR No.1054 of 2008

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr Deepak Gupta

INTRODUCTION –  The current case involves a food inspector who did indeed performed his duties as a government agent. What is in question is how long it takes to remedy a situation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The shop of the petitioner was visited by a food inspector on December 22, 1994, at around 3.30 PM, and a sample of hoya was taken; upon analysis, it was discovered to be adulterated.

After a trial, the petitioner was found guilty of violating Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (commonly known as “the Act”). In a separate order dated January 19, 2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kurukshetra sentenced the petitioner to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of $1,000 with a default sentence of 15 days. The learned Sessions Judge in Kurukshetra dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against the aforementioned conviction and sentence order on May 28, 2008.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Given his advanced age and the drawn-out nature of his case, the petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney has made a brief request that the sentence be reduced for the time that he has already served. According to the legal counsel, there was a 0.5% shortage of milk fat compared to what was specified. Almost 29 years have passed since the offence was committed in December 1994, and the petitioner has reached the age of more than 70. He was detained from May 28, 2008, until his by order dated June 3, 2008, this Court suspended the sentence.

On the other hand, learned state counsel contends that a minimum sentence is set forth in the Act’s provisions for committing the offence. But the learned State Counsel is unable to refute the above-mentioned factual position or the assertion that the petitioner has no prior criminal history and that there is no evidence to support his involvement in criminal activity following his conviction.After considering both submission  placed before the Hon’ble court

The court has decided, it  will not be appropriate to carry out the remainder of the petitioner’s sentence behind bars at such a old tender age.While upholding the petitioner’s conviction, his sentence is reduced for the time he has already served in light of the overall factual situation and rulings presented

“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-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Under Article 21, the right to food includes the right to food that is hygienic: Gujarat High Court rejects an application to reopen the meat markets in Surat.

Patel Dharmeshbhai Naranbhai v. Dharmendrabhai Pravinbhai Fofani.

Date :  11/04/2023

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10 of 2023 In R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 133 of 2021

Presided by: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

 Facts

In light of various writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court relating to illegal slaughter houses, their impact on the animals, public health and environment and for enforcement of various laws including food safety and standards laws, closure of illegal slaughter houses operating in contravention of the statutory provisions, the animal transport norms and for formation of State Level Committees to oversee the implementation of these and related laws, the Supreme Court passed various orders in the public interest litigation, and issued directions to Central Pollution Control Board to initiate action against all slaughter houses which are not meeting with the norms and complying with the abattoir rules.

According to the Supreme Court’s directives, unstamped meat stores and establishments that sold or slaughtered it without a licence were subject to closure by the authorities on the grounds that they were run in violation of numerous legal requirements. In light of the aforementioned facts, applications were submitted to the court asking for a ruling authorising the reopening of chicken meat markets in Surat.

Issue

Whether the closing of meat markets violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and amounts to a restriction on the freedom to free trade?

Judgement

The Court cited the provisions of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (the “Food Act”), stating that meat is one of the foods covered by the Act and that “Meat and Meat Products” are the subject of Regulation 2.5 of the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011. The rules stipulate that food business owners who manufacture, process, store, and sell meat and meat products must adhere to particular hygienic and sanitary procedures. Before being granted a licence to operate, the abattoir must first get a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) from the local authority.

According to the court, the applicants’ shops were shut down because they didn’t follow the rules of the applicable legislation, and permission to reopen the meat shops couldn’t be given because the shop owners continued to break the rules. The Court further stated that any basic right under Article 19(1) is subject to the reasonable limitations set forth in Subparagraphs (2) through (6). According to the statement, the provisions of the Food Act apply to the meat industry and meat shops. The regulatory and hygienic measures included in the said act for meat shops and slaughterhouses shall function as reasonable limitations on the freedom of the vendors of meat and slaughterhouse owners to conduct business.

The Court said that the freedom to trade or right to do business have to yield the public health norms and the restrictive compulsions needed to be enforced in larger public good. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food must be sub-serving to public health and food safety requirements…. 

The Court also made reference to the consumer’s right to food safety, stating that this right is compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution just as the right to food is. The Court further declared that the State authorities must fulfil their commitment to assure such safe food by putting the food safety standards and other regulatory measures outlined in the various statutes into practise and enforcement. Therefore, it would be difficult to allow all the meat markets and slaughterhouses that have been shut down by the authorities due to their failure to adhere to the licencing and regulatory standards, food and safety requirements, and pollution control requirements to reopen on large grounds.

Thus, the Court dismissed the applications and observed that meat shop owners, meat vendors or slaughter house owners ensuring the compliance of regulatory norms should be permitted to reopen their shops and establishments and run their business…. 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement

“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.”