Tag Archives: #HighCourt

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

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