advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Civil service
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT – In order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority Stop giving Oral instructions or directions by the administrative superiors, political executive etc.& directions to the Union State Governments and Union Territories to issue appropriate directions to secure providing of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants, within a period of three months. = T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40943
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT – In order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority Stop giving Oral instructions or directions by the administrative superiors, political executive etc. & directions to the Union State Governments and Union Territories to issue appropriate directions to secure providing of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants, … Continue reading
SERVICE MATTER = 1. What was the true nature of the appointment of the respondent? In particular, was the appointment regular or simply contractual in nature? and 2. If the appointment was contractual, was the termination thereof vitiated by any legal infirmity to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?=in the modern commercial world, executives are engaged on account of their expertise in a particular field and those who are so employed are free to leave or be asked to leave by the employer. Contractual appointments work only if the same are mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties and not otherwise. 29. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dismissing the Writ Appeal No.11 of 2003. We, however, direct that the salary and allowances if any paid to respondent No.1 pursuant to the impugned judgment shall not be recovered from him. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court as also in the courts below.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11303 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.10164 of 2008) GRIDCO Limited & Anr. …Appellants Versus Sri Sadananda Doloi & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Two questions fall for our … Continue reading
Labour Laws – Reinstatement with back wages – Absence without leave – Deemed as resignation as per Bye-Laws and Rules – Reappointment on compassionate ground ordered – After re-appointment, employee again going on leave without permission – Absence again deemed as his resignation – Writ petition by employee seeking his re-instatement in compliance with order of re-appointment – Single Judge of High Court dismissing the petition holding that the employee concealed the fact of his re-appointment – Division Bench of High Court allowing the writ appeal, holding that despite the order of re-appointment by respondent No. 3, he was not employed and directed reinstatement with back wages – In compliance of Division Bench order, employee reinstated – Thereafter, again he failed to report for work – In departmental inquiry for misconduct found guilty – On appeal, held: The decision of High Court was based on erroneous facts – On facts, High Court order not sustainable so far as payment of back wages and other benefits are concerned – Interference with the order regarding reinstatement not called for in view of his having been found guilty in domestic inquiry – The order is modified to the extent that the employee is entitled to full back wages from the date of his joining duty on reinstatement in compliance of order of Division Bench till the date he failed to report for work – Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 – r. 149(10)(1). Respondent No. 1, appointed with the appellant-Society, remained absent without leave from November, 1990. Appellant treated him to have resigned from service as per the Bye-Laws of the Society and r. 149(10)(1) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. After a lapse of 5 years, respondent No. 1 raised industrial dispute. During pendency of the dispute, he was re-appointed by respondent No. 3, on compassionate ground on certain conditions inter-alia that the period of his absence from duty till the date of his joining duty after re-appointment, shall be treated as leave without pay. After his re-appointment, respondent No. 1 was asked to join another Society. After joining there, he again failed to report for work for about one year. That Society passed a resolution to send him back to his parent Society. He was once again deemed to have resigned from the services of the Society. After about 3 years of the passing of the resolution, he filed a writ petition seeking his appointment in appellant- Society in pursuance of the order of re-appointment passed by respondent No. 3. He also sought all the salaries and other benefits from November, 1990. The writ petition was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court on account of suppression of material facts. Writ appeal, against the same was allowed by Division Bench of High Court directing to reinstate respondent No. 1 with back wages from the date of his dismissal, till the date of his reinstatement, together with all other attendant benefits. Hence the present appeal. During pendency of the case before Supreme Court, the appellant-Society reinstated the respondent in compliance of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of High Court. The respondent, after joining, again failed to report for work. He was placed under suspension and domestic inquiry was initiated against him. Inquiry Officer held that charges against him were duly proved. =Disposing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in the instant appeal, cannot be sustained at least as far as payment of back wages and other benefits are concerned. The conduct of the respondent No.1 does not justify the relief given to him by virtue of the impugned order. Despite the fact that the Single Judge pointed out that the prayer made in the Writ Petition could not be granted on account of suppression of material facts which ran counter to such prayer, the Division Bench appears to have lost sight of the same. As the facts reveal, the respondent No.1 unilaterally stopped coming to work without submitting any leave application or prior intimation and that too not for a day or two, but for months on end. The decision of the Appellant-Society to re-appoint the respondent No.1 on compassionate grounds leading to the order of respondent No. 3 permitting the Appellant-Society to re-appoint him, was in itself a concession made to the respondent No.1 which he misused subsequently. [Para 17] [331-C-G] 2. Even after he was released from the Vijayapuram Society on 24th February, 1997, the Respondent No.1 remained silent till 30th September, 2000, when he filed the writ petition for a direction to appoint him to a suitable post in the Appellant-Society or the Sankarapuram Taluk Co- operative Housing Society pursuant to the order passed by respondent No. 3. Despite the maximum latitude shown to him by allowing him to rejoin his duties in the Appellant-Society pursuant to the impugned order passed by Division Bench of High Court, the Respondent No.1 again failed to report for work, as a result he was placed under suspension and a domestic enquiry was conducted in which he was found to be guilty of the charges brought against him. [Para 18] [331-H; 332-A-C] 3. The Division Bench of the High Court does not appear to have considered the events which occurred after the respondent No.1 was reinstated in service pursuant to the order passed by respondent No. 3. The fact that thereafter, on account of his failure to report for duties for more than one year, the respondent No.1 was once again deemed to have resigned from the services of the Society u/r. 149(10)(1) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 appears to have been overlooked by the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court does not also appear to have taken into consideration the fact that the respondent No.1 remained silent for about three years, when he filed Writ Petition for a direction for his appointment. [Para 19] [332-D-G] 4. The events, prior to the date when the respondent No. 1 joined the service after the order passed by the respondent No. 3, and thereafter, were not seriously considered by the Division Bench of the High Court which proceeded on the basis that despite the order passed by the respondent No. 3, the Respondent No.1 had not been given appointment, which fact was entirely erroneous. [Para 20] [332-H; 333-A-B] Novartis India Limited vs. State of West Bengal (2009) 3 SCC 124, distinguished. 5. In the circumstances of the case, the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained. However, having regard to the fact that a domestic inquiry was conducted against the respondent No.1, in which he was found guilty, interference with that part of the order impugned, directing reinstatement is not called for, but the Court is not inclined to maintain the order of the Division Bench of the High Court regarding payment of back wages. [Para 21] [333-D-E] 6. In the circumstances of the case, the Court is inclined to modify the part of the impugned order directing payment of back wages by directing that the Respondent No.1 will be entitled to full wages only for the period between the date when respondent No. 1 joined duty pursuant to impugned judgment and the date when he failed to join duty for which departmental inquiry was initiated, and other connected benefits, if any. As far as payment of full salary for the period under suspension undergone by the respondent No.1 during which period he was being paid subsistence allowance is concerned, the same will depend on the final order to be passed in the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against the respondent No.1. [Para 23] [334-A-C] Case Law Reference: (2009) 3 SCC 124 Distinguished. Para 20 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4357 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 27.06.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 3748 of 2004. N. Shoba, Sriram J. Thalapathy and Adhi Venkataraman for the appellant. T. Harish Kumar and Anitha Shenoy for the Respondents.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4357 OF 2010 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.18834 OF 2007) Kallakurichi Taluk Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. … Appellant Vs. M. Maria Soosai & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T 2 ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This … Continue reading
The facts very briefly are that the respondent is a member of the Provincial Civil Services of the State of U.P.
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7105 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 33672 OF 2010) State of U.P. & Ors. …… Appellants Versus Luxmi Kant Shukla …… Respondent J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted. 2. This is an … Continue reading
the Wage Board Award recommending revised scales of pay was not clear if the advance increments were to continue and the Anomaly Committee after considering the matter had recommended that the benefit of advance increments should be given to employees who graduated or passed the Accounts Examinations on or before 30.06.1971 and that those who have passed the concerned examinations after this date shall not be eligible for this benefit. In the proceedings of the meeting of the OSEB held on 12.05.1973 it was also made clear that the OSEB accepted the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee not to allow advance increments in the case of employees who had obtained the degree or passed the Accounts Examinations subsequent to 30.06.1971. If respondent Nos. 1 to 5 desired to challenge this
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6904 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.12901 OF 2008) Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. … Appellant Versus Khageswar Sundaray & Ors. … Respondents O R D E R A. K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted. 2. This is an appeal against … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 