0

The Patna High Court sentenced on Equivalence of B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) Degrees in Recruitment Criteria

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Mini Agarwal v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others.

Case No.:   15933/ 2023

Dated on: 29th May 2024

Coram: Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN

FACTS OF THE CASE

the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Govt. Engineering Colleges, against the vacancy advertised by the Bihar Public Service Commission, vide advertisement no. 63/2020. After scrutiny, the petitioner was found eligible and was allowed to appear in written (objective) competitive examination and accordingly, the concerned Authority issued Admit Card of the petitioner bearing Roll No. 630278. she appeared in the written examination and was successful, proceeding to the interview stage. which was scheduled to be conducted on 12.04.2023. This petitioner has appeared before the Interview Board on the scheduled date and time along with relevant documents. After the interview, the petitioner discovered she had been awarded “0” marks for her graduation percentage because she held a B.Sc. (Physics) degree rather than a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree. The BPSC cited the requirement of a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree for awarding marks in this category. Subsequently, she sought some information from Department of Science and Technology & B.P.S.C. under RTI and filed representation before the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission and requested to review the relevant documentation and policies to ensure a fair assessment of her qualifications and consider her B.Sc.(Physics) degree as valid. Her requests were not addressed, leading her to file the present writ petition.

ISSUES

  • Whether the petitioner’s B.Sc. (Physics) degree should be considered equivalent to a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree for the purpose of awarding marks in the recruitment process for Assistant Professor as per UGC notification F5-1/2013 (CPP-II) and the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020:

  • Table-1: Specifies the qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professor in Engineering and Technology, and in Humanities and Science.
  • Table-2: Provides the weightage scheme for direct appointments to the post of Assistant Professor, specifying that candidates with a B.Sc. (Hons.) or B.A. (Hons.) degree are eligible for a 5% weightage for graduation marks.

 UGC Notification F5-1/2013 (CPP-II) dated July 5, 2014:

  • This notification deals about the specified degree and talks about degree like B.Sc./B.Sc. (Hons.). It means the degrees are treating in same fashion. As such, there should be treated to be one of the specified under graduate degree for direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor in Bihar Engineering College

 UGC Notification F.1-2/2017(EC/PS) dated July 18, 2018:

  • Specifies the minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers and academic staff in universities and colleges. The petitioner referenced this notification to argue that it does not differentiate between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) for shortlisting candidates.

 Advertisement No. 63/2020 by BPSC:

  • Specifies the eligibility criteria and weightage scheme for the recruitment of Assistant Professors in Government Engineering Colleges, including the requirement for a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree to receive marks for the graduation percentage.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner contended that her B.Sc. (Physics) should be considered equivalent to a B.Sc. Hons.  degree based on the UGC notification F5-1/2013 (CPP-II) dated July 5, 2014, which does not differentiate between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) degrees, treats them in the same manner. Also, UGC notification F.1-2/2017(EC/PS) dated July 18, 2018, which specifies the minimum qualifications for teaching positions and does not distinguish between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) degrees. She argues that the BPSC’s action is contrary to these UGC regulations.  As per the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020, and the UGC guidelines, her B.Sc. degree should make her eligible for the 5% weightage in graduation marks, which was denied to her by the BPSC. The petitioner points out that in previous BPSC advertisements, such as advertisement no. 19/2020 for the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic Colleges, marks were awarded for B.Sc. degrees irrespective of whether they were Hons. or not. She argues that the current practice of denying marks for her B.Sc. degree is inconsistent and unreasonable. The petitioner claims that despite filing representations and requests for reconsideration to the Secretary of the BPSC and the Department of Science and Technology, her qualifications were not fairly assessed, and no action was taken in her favour. She argues that the recruitment process should be fair and not disadvantage her based on a technical distinction between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) degrees, especially when UGC guidelines and previous BPSC practices did not make such a distinction, and thus, her B.Sc. degree should be considered valid for awarding the 5% graduation weightage as per the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents argue that the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020, explicitly require a B.Sc. (Hons.) or B.A. (Hons.) degree for awarding the 5% weightage in graduation marks. Since the petitioner holds a B.Sc. degree without honors, she does not qualify for these marks. They maintain that the advertisement no. 63/2020 for the recruitment of Assistant Professors was issued in compliance with the requisition sent by the Department of Science and Technology and follows the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020. Therefore, the recruitment process, including the qualification criteria, is legally valid and binding. The respondents emphasize that Table-2 of the Appendix-1 of the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020, prescribes that the weightage for graduation marks is specifically for candidates with B.Sc. (Hons.) or B.A. (Hons.) degrees. Hence, the petitioner’s B.Sc. (Physics) degree does not meet this requirement. While the respondents acknowledge the mark distribution scheme adopted for appointment of lecturers allowed marks for B.Sc. degrees irrespective of honors, the assert that the recruitment criteria for the post of Assistant Professor are different and more stringent, which justifies the distinction made in the current advertisement. BPSC has the authority and discretion to interpret and implement the rules as laid out in the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020. The decision to award “0” marks for the petitioner’s B.Sc. degree is in accordance with these rules and as far as the issue of reconsideration is concerned, the representations of the petitioners were duly reviewed but found to be without merit based on the explicit requirements of the advertisement and the rules. Therefore, no changes were made in her favour. One point unites all of the respondents’ arguments: the hiring process was carried out in a lawful and equitable manner, abiding by the established weighting schemes and criteria. The petitioner’s writ application is without merit because her qualifications did not match the required standards.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court upheld the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020, which clearly differentiate between B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Hons.) degrees for awarding weightage marks in the recruitment process. The court emphasized that the rules explicitly prescribe a maximum 5% weightage for graduation marks only to candidates with B.Sc. (Hons.) or B.A. (Hons.) degrees. The Coury stated that the BPSC’s advertisement no. 63/2020 was in consonance with the requisition sent by the Department of Science and Technology and complied with the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020. The educational qualifications and weightage scheme provided in the advertisement were found to be lawful and appropriately applied. The court gave importance to the precedent requirements laid down in the Bihar Engineering Education Service Rules, 2020 to be binding for the recruitment process and rejected the petitioner’s argument that her B.Sc. degree should be treated as equivalent to a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree based on UGC notifications and noted that even though there were some inconsistency in the previous advertisements,  The current recruitment criteria for Assistant Professor are distinct and justified by the need for more stringent qualifications. The court concluded that the recruitment process was conducted fairly and legally, adhering strictly to the rules and guidelines. The BPSC’s decision to award “0” marks for the petitioner’s graduation percentage was found to be in accordance with the advertised criteria. Based on the above rationale the court dismissed the writ application, stating that the petitioner’s B.Sc. degree does not qualify for the weightage marks as per the prescribed rules, and thus, there is no merit in her claims.

“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 – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement

0

Patna High Court Upholds Special Court’s Decision: No Jurisdiction to Release Seized Vehicles under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

#patna High court, Blog , , , ,

Patna High Court Upholds Special Court’s Decision: No Jurisdiction to Release Seized Vehicles under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

Case title: Kalam Ansari VS The State of Bihar

Case no.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11188 of 2024

Dated on: 22nd May 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR

FACTS OF THE CASE

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by Ld. Special Judge (Excise), Court No.-II, Muzaffarpur in Excise P.S. Case No. 1777 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(2) and 48 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, whereby Ld. Special Court has rejected the application filed on behalf of the Petitioner to release the seized Truck bearing Registration No. JH-10CR-7110, Chassis No. MC2ERHRC0PDB05988, Engine No. E446CDP063534 in favour of the Petitioner holding that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is barred under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act to release the vehicle seized under the Act. As per the materials on record, the vehicle in question was seized by the Police with 2847liter liquor and subsequently, Excise P.S. Case No. 1777 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023 was lodged against the owner, who is the Petitioner herein, and other two Accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(2) and 48 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the Special Court has the jurisdiction to order the release of the vehicle seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
  2. Whether the vehicle seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 can be released by any court or if there are specific provisions under the Act and the Rules that provide a mechanism for the release of such vehicles.
  3. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application by the Special Court was in compliance with the statutory provisions under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.
  4. Whether the petitioner has any alternate remedies available under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, particularly concerning Rule 12A and Section 57B.
  5. Whether the petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in light of the bar on jurisdiction of the Special Court under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
  6. Whether there is any illegality, impropriety, or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order passed by the Special Judge (Excise) in rejecting the petitioner’s application for the release of the seized vehicle.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section grants inherent powers to the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016:

Section 30(a): Deals with the penalties for manufacturing, transporting, possessing, or selling intoxicants without a license.

Section 32(2): Pertains to penalties related to the illegal possession of intoxicants.

Section 48: Addresses the offenses related to the abetment of the violations mentioned in the Act.

Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: This section deals with the confiscation of vehicles, vessels, or any other conveyances used for transporting intoxicants illegally.

Section 57B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (inserted in 2022): Allows for the release of a vehicle seized under the Act by the Collector upon payment of a penalty as notified by the State Government.

Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: Explicitly bars any court from having jurisdiction to pass orders for the release of vehicles seized under this Act, indicating that only specified authorities (such as the Collector) can handle such matters.

Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended in 2022): Provides a mechanism for the release of seized vehicles upon payment of a stipulated penalty, detailing the procedural aspects to be followed for such release.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses all valid documents relating to the vehicle showing that he is owner of the vehicle. He further submits that he has also valid documents regarding the liquor which was loaded in the Truck. He also claims that Ld. Special Court has jurisdiction to release the vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Learned. APP for the State defends the impugned order submitting that under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, jurisdiction of the Special Court is barred in regard to release of any vehicles seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and hence, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. He further submits that the seized vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. However, under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, as stands after amendment in 2022, read with Section 57B of the Act, 2016, the Petitioner is at liberty to get the vehicle released after payment of penalty as stipulated in the Rules.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

After perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it clearly transpires that jurisdiction of any Court is barred to pass any order in regard to seized vehicle or other items as mentioned in the Section 60 of the Act. It also clearly transpires that the seized material under the Act is liable to be confiscated as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. However, as per the Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, the Petitioner has liberty to move an application for releasing the vehicle on payment of penalty as decided by Excise Officials under the Rules. It is also pertinent to note that despite provisions for bar of jurisdiction of any Court in any statute, writ jurisdiction of High Court is not ousted. Here, it would be relevant to refer to Suresh Sah Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2020(1) BLJ 706, wherein Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the jurisdiction of Special Excise Court and High Court in view of Section 60 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Section 57B as inserted in 2022, by way of amendment, provides that any vehicle used for committing any offence punishable under the Prohibition and Excise Act and having been seized by any police officer or Excise Officer may be released by the Collector upon payment of such penalty as may be notified by the State Government. Here, it was clearly held that in the light of Section 60 of said Act, jurisdiction of Special Excise Court is barred, but such bar does not operate in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraph of the Suresh Sah case (supra) reads as In Sunaina @ Suneina Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2024 SCC online Pat 851, AIR ONLINE 2024 PAT 73, 2024 (3) BLJ 163), Division Bench of this Court exercising writ jurisdiction, has further held that if the requisites for seizure or confiscation of vehicle are not fulfilled, the seizure or confiscation of any vehicle under the Excise Act, 2016 would be arbitrary and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution and the owner of the vehicle would be entitled not only to the release of the vehicle but even compensation on account of such seizure or confiscation. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it clearly emerges that Special Excise Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order in regard to the vehicle seized under the provisions of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Hence, Ld. Special Excise Court has rightly rejected the application of the Petitioner. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, nor is any miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in limine upholding the impugned order. However, the Petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court, if he is of the view that his vehicle was not liable to be seized under the Excise Act. But if the Petitioner believes that he has violated the statutory provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 rendering his vehicle liable to be seized/confiscated, he may move appropriate application before the Executive Officials for releasing the vehicle on payment of penalty under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Hence petition stands dismissed.

“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 – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Judgement in 30 minutes: SC Dismisses Trial Judge’s Appeal Against Patna HC’s Observation Against Him For Conducting Hasty Trial.

Blog , , , , , , , , , ,
  1. CASE TITLE – Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & ANR.

CASE NUMBER – Criminal Appeal No. 3924 of 2023 & Criminal Appeal Nos. 3926 – 3927 of 2023

DATED ON – 17.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice S.V.N Bhatti

FACTS OF THE CASE

An FIR was registered in Crime No. 137 of 2021 for the occurrence that took place on 01.12.2021. The said complaint was filed by the mother of the victim on 02.12.2021. Accordingly, the case was registered under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC, 1860”) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act, 2012”). The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the accused took advantage of a minor girl child and committed the offence of rape. The accused was arrested on 12.12.2021. He was produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate on 13.12.2021 and remanded to judicial custody till 24.12.2021. On 12.01.2022, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences aforestated. The accused was produced through video conferencing on 15.01.2022. There was no advocate representing the accused, and the case was put up on 24.01.2022 for his production. On 20.01.2022, without the FSL report, the charge-sheet filed was taken on record. The prosecutor was directed to ensure the presence of the accused through video conferencing. The accused feigned his inability to engage a lawyer as he was behind bars. The case was adjourned to 22.01.2022 for framing of charges and for the supply of documents. On that day i.e. 22.01.2022, the counsel appearing for the accused was provided with the documents, without being given any time and without ensuring that these documents were in fact shown to the accused, followed by due consultation with his lawyer, directly arguments were heard on framing of charges. Thereafter, the charges were framed and explained to the accused through the virtual mode. On the very same date, an order was passed for summoning the prosecution witnesses. Strangely enough, an application was filed by the Investigating Officer to record the evidence of four witnesses in a single day, as a confidential information obtained, indicated that there was pressure from the family members of the accused. No notice was served either on the accused or his counsel, and the order was passed, without taking into consideration the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. In disregard of the provisions of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After two days i.e. 24.01.2022, the remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, were examined. There was no material to show that the accused was present at that point of time. To question under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973 alone, the accused was brought through video conferencing. The repeated plea of adjournment by one week made by the counsel for the defence was once again rejected, while ultimately facilitating a day’s adjournment.

Two days thereafter i.e. 27.01.2022, the case was posted for sentencing. Upon hearing the accused, the death sentence was imposed by the trial court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, called for the records and went through them thoroughly, finding that there is non-compliance of Sections 207, 226, 227 and 230 of the CrPC, 1973, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, and ordered for a de novo trial. Incidentally, the approach adopted by the Trial Court was found faulty. Assailing the impugned judgment on merit, the informant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 3924 of 2023. Aggrieved over the observations made by the High Court, the learned Trial Judge has filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 3926-3927 of 2023.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012, enacted to address child abuse and exploitation.

The Rules for Video Conferencing of Courts, 2020, enacted by India’s Supreme Court, established a framework for conducting court hearings virtually.

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, enacted to shield witnesses from intimidation and threats, ensuring they can testify freely in court.

 

CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT

The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for both the informant and the learned Trial Judge, submitted that the procedure established by law has been followed. The appellant has kept in mind the rigor of Section 309 of the CrPC, 1973 read with the provisions contained under the POCSO Act, 2012. Even assuming that there was a procedural flaw, given the mandate contained under Section 465 of the CrPC, 1973 he argued that there was no need for remittal. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellant has discharged his judicial function and, therefore, any action without hearing him is contrary to law. Though the charges had been dropped, the observations made would be detrimental to his future career progression. The accused had antecedents and, therefore, the Trial Court rightly exercised due caution and mentioned that it was a case where no witness was produced on behalf of the defence.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The Learned Senior counsel appearing for the High Court and the accused submitted that admittedly there were serious procedural violations. Prejudice was sufficiently demonstrated before the court and stated that it would be impossible for a Judge to deliver the judgment within such a short span of time and no opportunity was given at every stage of the trial to the accused. The Learned Senior Counsel further stated that it was a clear case of  “justice hurried is justice buried”. And that there is no question of giving an opportunity to the appellant, the judicial officer, as no action is pending against him.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the High Court, while passing both the impugned judgments, had not only called for the records and rendered findings of fact, but has also considered them in detail. At every stage, the accused was denied due opportunity to defend himself and was also of the notion that the appellant judicial officer was obviously acting in utmost haste. They noticed that at every stage, including framing of charges, there was a constant denial of due opportunity and hearing. The accused was not able to consult his lawyer. He was not even served with the copies, though his lawyer received the same before framing of the charges. The held that receiving of documents by his lawyer would not be sufficient compliance, unless there was sufficient time given for him to peruse them and thereafter have a consultation and also noted that neither the provisions of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 have been invoked nor the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 were followed. And also said that regarding the application filed seeking intervention over the action taken on the administrative side, it is for the appellant to approach the High Court. The present appeals were then dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also gave instructions for the Trial Court to go over the case again while keeping in mind the POCSO Act, 2012 while recording the evidence of the victim.

“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 – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Compromise Between The Parties Is Enough To Settle A Case In Compoundable Offence: High Court Of Patna

Blog , ,

Citation: CR. MISC. No.40319

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma

Decided On: 01-11-2023

Introduction:

Present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019, G.R. No. 674 of 2019 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts:

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after the police submitted charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and after framing of the charges, on intervention of the well wishers, the parties have compromised the case. It is next submitted that the opposite party no. 2 herein does not intend to pursue with the case or the trial.

Mr. Purushotam Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that he has instruction to make submissions on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party does not have any objection in the event if the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura framing charges against the petitioners is quashed.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

 

Considering the submissions made he order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019, G.R. No. 674 of 2019 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is held quashed by the Court.

“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

Patna High Court directed the respondent to calculate the interest approved on different heads and pay to the petitioner

Blog

TITLE: Rambali Das v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Decided on: 25-07-2023 

CWJC No: 3856/2023

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

Introduction:

Learned counsel standing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner retired in 2009 from the position of Headmaster at Model +2 High School in Munger. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the letter dated 29.08.2022 to this writ petition, which denies interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefit.

The respondents have admitted that the retiral dues claimed by the petitioner were paid six years after his retirement.

Analysis of the court and decision:

In the aforementioned conditions, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Munger is instructed to compute the interest approved on various heads, up till the date of payment, and sanction the same to be remitted into the petitioner’s account, using the law established by the Apex Court.

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforementioned observation and instruction.

“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- Meghana D

Click to view judgement

1 2 3 … 8