Category: Service

Service Matters

Law Officers—Appointment of—Directions issued to State of Punjab and Haryana to frame policy and till then a selection committee would short list the applications and recommend it to committee of Judges which would further be sent to Chief Justice for his views—State Government shall then appoint the candidate on basis of views expressed by Chief Justice on suitability—All fresh and re appointments to be done under this process.

2016) 6 ADJ 14 : (2016) AIR(SCW) 1629 : (2016) AIR(SC) 1629 : (2016) AllSCR 1795 : (2016) 3 AllWC 2846 : (2016) 1 BBCJ 567 : (2016) 3 GujLH…

Service Matters

Departmental Traps–The violation thereof, if any, by the investigation officer would not ipso facto vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. Writ–Administrative Instructions–Even if there has been any break of executive instructions that does not confer any right on the member of the public to ask for a writ against Govt.

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 501 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta  Civil Appeal No. 5033 of…

Service Matters

Pay Scale–When a concession was extended as distinct from implementing a specific recommendation of the Pay Commission with reference to a particular period of time, it is open to the Govt. to provide that the benefit it proposes to give, would be available only from a notified date. Cadre–Merger of Cadre–Court cannot issue direction for merger of cadre.

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 477 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan Civil Appeal No. 2468-2469 of 2005…

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.