0

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

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.

“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

0

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

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.

“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: Gauri Joshi

click here to view judgement

0

Balancing Equity and Fairness: Court Quashes Harsh Penalty, Directs Reconsideration in Landmark Decision: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Shashi Bala Meena vs Punjab National Bank

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7612/2015

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Decided on: 24/05/23

Introduction:

The petitioner has filed an instant petition seeking the court’s acceptance and allowance of the writ petition. The prayer includes a request for the court to quash and set aside certain orders, reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits and interest, and any other order deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court. Additionally, the petitioner seeks the award of costs in their favor.

Facts:

The petitioner, a Senior Manager at a bank, faced multiple transfers during her service and was granted three promotions with an unblemished record. Following a transfer to Alwar Branch, she sought retention due to family circumstances. Despite requests and applications for medical leave, the petitioner was relieved to join Alwar Branch. Subsequently, an expedited enquiry was initiated, and the petitioner, suffering from Arthritis, was compelled to join. The enquiry concluded swiftly, resulting in an order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner alleges a hasty and unfair process, citing medical conditions and unavailed privilege leave. The respondents argue willful absence and alternative remedies. The court emphasizes an employee’s duty to obey transfer orders but acknowledges the need for proportionality in disciplinary action, highlighting the recognized doctrine of proportionality in judicial review.

Judgement analysis:

The court, invoking the principle of rendering equitable justice, acknowledges the need for compelling circumstances to interfere with a penalty’s quantum. Emphasizing fair play in administrative decisions, the judgment considers the impact on both the employee and management, recognizing the gravity of imposing punishment affecting livelihoods. In light of the petitioner’s 25 years of unblemished service, unavailed privilege leaves, and the circumstances surrounding her transfer and subsequent compulsory retirement, the court deems the punishment harsh. It rejects cited judgments as inapplicable to this case.

Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the court quashes the impugned orders and remits the matter for reconsideration of the punishment within three months. While allowing the petition in part, the court directs the petitioner’s reinstatement without back wages from the date of compulsory retirement.

The judgment places the onus on the appropriate authority to reassess the penalty, emphasizing a balanced approach that considers the specific circumstances of the case. The decision reflects a nuanced understanding of administrative decisions affecting individuals’ livelihoods.

“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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

Madras High Court Stays ED Summons to District Collectors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case .

Madras High Court Stays ED Summons to District Collectors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case .

Title : Enforcement Directorate v. T.T.V.Dhinakaran

Case : W.P.No.20492 of 2008

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R.KALAIMATH

Introduction

The Enforcement Directorate is on appeal against the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge allowing the application under Section 9(5) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909, thereby setting aside the insolvency notice issued to the respondent herein.

Fact of the Case

The respondent was accused of violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Since the violation amounted to an offence under the provisions of the said Act and it also made him liable for penalty, proceedings were initiated by the appropriate Authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for adjudication of the penalty. The Adjudicating Authority viz., the Special Director of Enforcement by its order in original dated 06.02.1998 imposed a penalty of Rs.31 Crores. Aggrieved the respondent preferred an appeal in A.No.51 of 1998 before the appellate Authority viz., the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board.

Case Analysis and Judgment

The notice impugned in the writ petition will have to be set aside solely on the ground that it is not competent for the Collector to effect recovery of monies due to the Central Government by invoking the State Act. Here again, court will have to reserve the liberty to the Enforcement Directorate to seek recovery under the provisions of Central Act viz., the Revenue Recovery Act 1 of 1890.

In fine, the OSA is dismissed, and the writ petition will stand allowed. Since court have accepted the contentions of the appellant on the vital issue relating to the effect of the order of the adjudicating Authority, we do not impose costs

0

Justice Prevails: Court Upholds Employee’s Rights, Quashes Unjust Removal, and Ensures Fair Compensation: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Badri Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 14681/2019

Coram: Justice Dinesh Mehta

Decided on: 14-03-2023.

Introduction:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Headquarters and Traffic, Jodhpur, resulting in the petitioner’s removal from services. In response to this, the petitioner has sought remedy through the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

Facts:

The petitioner applied for the position of Constable (General) in May/June 2018, received an appointment order on 26.09.2018, and joined on 29.09.2018. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against him by his erstwhile wife, leading to his removal from government services on 01.08.2018 under Rule 19(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules. The petitioner argued the order was illegal, lacked notice or hearing, and the criminal case resulted in acquittal. The court found a violation of natural justice, emphasizing the principle of “audi alterem partem.” It ruled in favour of the petitioner, highlighting the absence of justification for dismissal in light of the acquittal and the infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16. The court declared the order illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, emphasizing the petitioner’s acquittal as a crucial factor.

Judgement analysis:

In the given case, the petitioner faced removal from government services based on an FIR filed against him by his wife. The court emphasized the petitioner’s clear acquittal, stating it was not due to compromise but lack of evidence. Drawing a distinction from precedent cases, where convictions and false declarations were crucial, the court ruled in favour of the petitioner, quashing the removal order dated 23.09.2019.

The judgment highlighted that the petitioner had disclosed the FIR during character verification, and the respondents, aware of the situation, allowed him to join. The court ordered the petitioner’s continued service from the joining date (29.09.2018) and directed the respondents to confirm/regularize his service within two years, considering the quashing of the 2019 order. The petitioner was entitled to arrears, with a deadline for payment by 30.09.2023, and granted the right to claim interest if delayed. Additionally, the petitioner could seek the cost of litigation from the respondents, 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.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3 4 5 16