Service Law – Leave encashment is part of the salary –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH JAGDISH PRASAD SAINI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI. and S.…
Compassionate Appointment – The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased – respondent a married daughter her elder sister application for appointment already dismissed HELD respondent not dependent on her mother so claim for appointment on death of mother rejected.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI) — Respondent ( Before…
In a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and matter should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYATS AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM — Appellant Vs. S. ARICHANDRAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna…
Tribunal and the High Court have not committed any error in directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess the suitability of the respondent for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR for the year 2007-2008.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. G.R. MEGHWAL — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Denial of pension is a continuing wrong – HELD settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, one favouring employee be taken.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. O.P. GUPTA — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Special Leave…
HELD calculate terminal benefits as are payable to the appellants on the basis of the orders passed by the learned CAT dated 26th May 2008 and 7th July, 2010. The order of CAT was never challenged by UOI..
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH R.D. KAUSHAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…
Mistake of State who issued impugned circular – State was not justified in ordering recovery of the excess amount paid with interest, more particularly, when it is reported that some of the doctors/dentists – members of the association have retired on attaining the age of superannuation and the recovery shall be from their pension/pensionary benefits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M.P. MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
HELD reinstatement of an employee who was dismissed as a result of disciplinary proceedings, and was only reinstated in service because of his acquittal in criminal proceedings, but again the reasons which weighed with the Court in such cases were that in almost in all such cases, the acquittal was an honourable acquittal and not an acquittal on a technicality, or on acquittal given because of “benefit of doubt”.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PHOOL SINGH — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…
Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 – The amendment with retrospective effect is to make the benevolent provisions equally applicable to teachers – The amendment seeks to bring equality and give fair treatment to the teachers – It can hardly be categorised as an arbitrary and high-handed exercise – Appeal Dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M.…
HJS – HELD board which conducted the vivavoce of the candidates who qualified in the written examination was different, there are hardly candidates who had qualified against the number of vacancies and it would be advisable that there should be one common board to evaluate the performance of all the candidates who may now qualify in the revised declaration of the result of written examination and that, would do justice to the candidates – Appeal Allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…