Category: Service

Service Matters

Indian Railway Establishment Manual – Clause 129 – Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – Appointment – Entitlement to Financial upgradation-Tribunal would independently apply their mind to the facts and the legal position after calling upon the appellant, that is, the Southern Railway, Trivandrum and the respondents, that is, the original applicants before the Tribunal to file additional affidavits, if required and necessary

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ROSAMMA BENNY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

Service Matters

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Sections 2(n), 3, 9 and 11 – University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 – Regulations 5 and 8 – Sexual harassment at workplace – Termination – Whether the order issued under the signatures of ViceChancellor of the Central University of Kerala is simplicitor termination or exfacie stigmatic? HELD exfacie stigmatic, employee reinstated.  

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V. — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

Service Matters

Army Act, 1950 – Section 20 – Army Rules, 1954 – Rule 17 – Dismissal by Chief of the Army Staff – While exercising the power under Section 20 of the Army Act, the only procedure which is required to be followed would be under rule 17 of the Army Rules, namely, a person who is sought to be dismissed or removed from service has been informed of the particulars of the cause of action against him and allowed reasonable time to state in writing any reasons

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY MARUTIRAO PATIL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment of Vice­Principal – it is seen that Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII would indicate that the prior approval from the University is required to be taken. However, the tabular form extracted and taken note by the Division Bench in para 6 of the order would indicate that on most of the occasions the approval has been granted post facto -It is no doubt true that when a procedure is contemplated the same is required to be followed. However, in the present fact the very manner in which the appellants have proceeded to deny the benefit to the respondent would indicate that the action is not bonafide

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNING BODY SWAMI SHRADDHANAND COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. AMAR NATH JHA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Service Matters

Government of India Act, 1935 – Section 241(2)(b) – Enhancement of age of retirement HELD Appellant who attained the age of 60 years – Age of retirement which prevailed at the relevant time was not entitled to the benefit of the notification – not entitled to the enhanced age of retirement of 65 years

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDRA MOHAN VARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – Rule 6 – Eligibility for appointment HELD Merely because the 1st respondent had approached the High Court by filing of a writ petition, that would not be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in over­reaching the rights of the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE KARNATAKA STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SMT. H.L. KAVERI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.