Category: Service

Service Matters

Legal assistance – Disciplinary proceedings – Assistance of legal practitioner – Assistance of legal practitioner barred under the Regulations – Only Govt. employee allowed to assist the delinquent – High Court directing the authority to allow assistance of retired employee – Though he is not a legal practitioner who is prohibited to appear to assist the delinquent, it amounts to permitting the retired employee to have regular practice

  AIR 1997 SC 2982 : (1997) 6 JT 447 : (1997) 2 LLJ 825 : (1997) 5 SCALE 14 : (1997) 6 SCC 380 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1473 :…

Service Matters

Seniority – Absorption – Counting of services rendered by deputationist in the parent department – Held: Any Rule, Regulation or Executive Instructions which has the effect of taking away the service rendered by deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the department while counting his seniority in the deputed post would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

  AIR 2000 SC 594 : (2000) 85 FLR 305 : (1999) 9 JT 597 : (1999) 7 SCALE 466 : (2000) 1 SCC 644 : (2000) SCC(L&S) 213 :…

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.