Service Archives - Page 51 of 79 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

May 15, 2024 11:19 am

Service Law – One Man Commission – Revision of pay-scales – The 6th Central Pay Commission comprising of experts in the field had recommended certain pay-scales for various posts – HELD but if further anomalies were found which called for action on part of the Government, any exercise to reconsider the matter by the State Government could not be faulted nor could the constitution of the PGRC (Pay Grievance Redressal Cell) be said to be invalid or illegal –

Nov 28, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS AND ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday…

Service

Upon reaching a finding of arbitrariness in the selection process, the Court could at the most have issued a direction to the State Screening Committee to reassess the names of all candidates by giving due consideration to all relevant documents………….. it was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the merit of the candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the Screening Committee. Appeal Allowed

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAIDYANATH YADAV — Appellant Vs. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 – Rules 28, 28(i) and Rule 28(iii) – Seniority – Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service – In particular Rule 28(i) of the MPS Rules, 1965 which is applicable to both promotees and direct recruits

Nov 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NINGAM SIRO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S.Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Service

All India Services Act, 1951 – Section 3 – Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – Regulations 5(1), 5(2), 5(4), 5(5), 6, 6A and 7 – Review of promotions made to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the year 2004 – High Court was not right in holding that the Selection Committee has miserably failed to assess all the aspects of the case in their proper perspective and that the promotions made to the IAS for the vacancies of the year 2004 is vitiated and the same is to be reviewed. Judgement set aside.

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION — Appellant Vs. JAWAHAR SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Service

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jabalpur HELD We, thus, hold that the persons such as the respondent and the intervenors on deputation to APS from Department of Posts are not entitled to the benefit of OROP. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and hence set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LT. COL. OM DUTT SHARMA (RETD.) DEAD THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Service

Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 – Sections 16 and 18 – First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 – Appointment of teachers HELD When the impugned judgment is analysed in light of the applicable norms, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant’s appointment by the Management, was not in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAVINDRA SINGH — Appellant Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Service

Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regulations 78, 105B, 107 and 107(1) – Quantification of disability pension – Individual – A person who has completed the period of engagement is entitled to disability element apart from service pension. The expression ‘service pension’ admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service provided under Regulation 78. It is not for the Courts to remedy the defect in the Statute.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. V.R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

Service

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 88 – Grant of pension – The services rendered by the respondents as GDS or other ExtraDepartmental Agents cannot be factored in for computing their qualifying services in regular posts under the postal department on the question of grant of pension.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GANDIBA BEHERA — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Service

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 311(2)(b) – Dismissal of the judicial officers dispensing with the departmental inquiry. HELD The appeals are dismissed and the stay order is vacated, albeit we clarify that the respondents, in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench, would be required to proceed in accordance with law.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI NIWAS GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

Air Force Rules, 1969 – Rules 15(2), 15(2)(g)(ii) and Rule 15(2)(k) – Habitual offender -The show cause notice issued to the Respondent is in accordance with the Habitual Offenders Policy. A second warning letter is not required when it is decided to pass a final order without giving another chance. There is no violation of the procedure prescribed by the Policy –

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. 794898 T. EX. CORPORAL ABHISHEK PANDEY — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

Category: Service

You missed