Latest Post

Allotment of Land — Irregularity — Public Interest Litigation — Demolition vs. Regularisation — The court must balance the wrong committed with the current reality and socio-economic consequences — Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex, involving significant investment, employment, and tax revenue, may not serve public interest if financial restitution is possible. All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 — Rule 16(2A) — Voluntary Retirement — Acceptance by Central Government — Central Government has the ultimate authority to accept or reject a Voluntary Retirement (VRS) notice — It is not bound by the State Government’s recommendation and must apply its mind to all relevant facts and circumstances — This power is not unconstrained and is guided by DoPT Guidelines, requiring consideration of pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings that could lead to a major penalty — The Central Government can accept a VRS request even if a major penalty is possible, but this requires a conscious and well-informed decision — Appeals allowed, order of Central Government rejecting VRS set aside, and matter remitted for fresh consideration. Environment Law — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court’s directions for States to file compliance affidavits — Court expresses displeasure at Rajasthan’s lacklustre response and apathy in implementing directions affecting National Chambal Sanctuary — Rajasthan directed to ensure personal presence of senior officers with compliance reports — Court also directs Madhya Pradesh to address issue of unregistered vehicles. Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 — Temporary status casual labourer — Entitlement to pensionary benefits — Held, entitled even in the absence of formal regularisation, provided eligibility criteria under Rule 10(1-B) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, are fulfilled. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 8, 10, 19 — Property of a male Hindu dying intestate — Devolution of property — Heirs taking property as tenants-in-common and not joint tenants — Each heir having a definite and separate share — No presumption of coparcenary property.—-Section 8 — Property inherited by a son from his father — Son takes the property in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own Hindu Undivided Family — Descendants of the heir do not acquire rights in such property by birth.

Education – Admission to Postgraduate Dental Course – Even if on the last date of admission, seats remained vacant was no ground by the institutions/colleges to grant admissions unilaterally and that too without intimating the vacant seats to the Directorate – High Court directing admissions quashed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

UGC Regulations – Appointment of Vice Chancellor – – State Act if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must be amended to bring it on a par with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then it is the applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail – A subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become part of the Act –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. — Appellant Vs. DR. RAJASREE M.S. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Service Matters

All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 – Rules 6, 8 and 10 – Neither the procedure as being known to the scheme of Rules 1969 nor further action, if any, initiated has been placed on record – The stage to inflict penalty upon the appellant, in the given facts and circumstances, does not arise.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. AJIT KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar,…

There is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate. HELD The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test must not be conducted – It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity

The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test must not be conducted – It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes…

You missed