advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
indian army
Service matter = Employer can refix the pay and recover the same from Employee when pay was fixed wrongly by mistake with out considering the rules and regulations in fixation of pay of Re-Employed pensioner = U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. …APPELLANTS VERSUS GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR. …RESPONDENTS = Reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40951
Employer can refix the pay and recover the same from Employee when pay was fixed wrongly by mistake with out considering the rules and regulations in fixation of pay of Re-Employed pensioner = if any amount had been paid due to mistake, the mistake must be rectified and the amount so paid in pursuance of the mistake must … Continue reading
Military service – while in service, the claimant affected with mental disability and on his termination of his service, he is entitled for pensioner benefits = (i) Whether a member of Armed Forces can be presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service in absence of disabilities or disease noted or recorded at the time of entrance. (ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for disability pension. = whether a disability is attributable or aggravated by military service to be determined under “Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982″ of AppendixII (Regulation 173).= (ii) A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)]. (iii) Onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for nonentitlement is with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally. (Rule 9). (v) If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual’s acceptance for military service, a disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in service. [14(b)].= As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions. “Classification of diseases” have been prescribed at Chapter IV of Annexure I; under paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy and other mental changes resulting from head injuries have been shown as one of the diseases affected by training, marching, prolonged standing etc. Therefore, the presumption would be that the disability of the appellant bore a casual connection with the service conditions. In view of the finding as recorded above, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench dated 31st July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004 and uphold the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 20th May, 2004. The impugned order is set aside and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the appellant the benefit in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law within three months if not yet paid, else they shall be liable to pay interest as per order passed by the learned Single Judge. No costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40493 Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4949 OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No. 6940 of 2010) DHARAMVIR SINGH …. APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 31st July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachanl Pradesh, Shimla whereby the Division Bench allowed the … Continue reading
compensation for wrongful detention by abusing the police powers – apex court granted 2 lakhs – Crime No.11/98 was registered against the appellant under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code = the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.1426 of 2010 is under challenge. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench upheld the judgment dated 27th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1243 of 2003 and dismissed the appeal, affirming the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant claiming the damages and praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ for his alleged illegal detention and confinement. = Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative action must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. An administrative authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power.= It has already been noticed that the respondents before the Advisory Board or before the trial court failed to bring on record any evidence to frame the charges against the appellant under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1992 and under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC or under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In spite of the same, Ist respondent, 2nd respondent, V.Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3rd respondent, M. Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City before this Court have taken similar plea that the appellant was inciting the police personnel in Tamil Nadu to form an association to fight for their rights and toured the districts of Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli, Pudukottai and Chennai City and incited the serving police personnel over forming of an association, and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. By way of additional affidavit certain so called statements of persons have been enclosed which have been filed without any affidavit and were neither the part of the trial court record or material placed before the Advisory Board. The aforesaid action on the part of the Ist, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent in support of their act of detaining the appellant illegally by placing some material which has beyond the record justifies the appellant’s allegation that the respondents abused their power and position to support their unfair order. In view of the observation made above, though we do not give specific finding on mala fide action on the part of the Ist, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent but we hold that the respondentState and its officers have grossly abused legal power to punish the appellant to destroy his reputation in a manner nonoriented by law by detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in lodging a Criminal Case No.11/98 under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1992 and under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC based on the wrong statements which were fully unwarranted.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40488 Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4815 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.32704 OF 2010) N. SENGODAN … APPELLANT VERUS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (PROHIBITION & EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal the judgment dated 16th August, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.1426 of 2010 is under challenge. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench upheld the judgment dated 27th April, … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 