Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Aug 22 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs S. Vasanthi  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Aug 2014]

Bhanu Pratap Dhruv S/o P. R. Dhruv and others vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Through its Chairman cum Managing Director, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 14 Aug 2014]

Bhibhuti Narain Singh vs Food Corporation of India Through Chairman and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 14 Aug 2014]

Dr. Sudhir Vithal Medhekar vs Government of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mumbai and others  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 14 Aug 2014]
Service - Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, s.5 - Transfer - Opposed - Sustainability - Petitioner challenged the judgment and order passed by Tribunal - Petitioner contended that respondent No.3 exerted political pressure to get his transfer cancelled - Petitioner was occupying the post in the Grant Medical College since last 17 years and in spite of there being a law in respect of transfer of government employees, respondent No.3 had been successful in retaining his post in Grant Medical College by remaining in the city of Mumbai - Provisions of s. 5 of the Act were violated - Without any justifiable reasons the transfer of respondent No.3 was cancelled - Petitioner further submitted that the State authorities were giving explanation that respondent No.3 was engaged in important projects and he had done excellent work and, therefore, his presence was very much needed in the Grant Medical College and till the project was completed his presence was necessary in the said college - These reasons, according to petitioner, were pressed into service to cover up the undeserving leniency shown to respondent No.3 -

Held, Tribunal had observed that the petitioner was not prejudiced as he was posted on promotion at Aurangabad and respondent No.3 had done excellent work in the Grant Medical College in J.J.Group of Hospitals - State should make every endeavor to discourage the government servants, more particularly, the persons with such high qualification holding important posts from exerting political pressure or seeking political patronage in routine matters of transfer - Highest authority in the State Govt., in accordance with law, in a given case for exceptional reasons may exercise the power conferred by s. 4(5) of Act - HC did not find any such element apparent in the facts of the case - In the facts and circumstances of the case, HC found that the view adopted by the Tribunal was not in consonance with the letter and spirit of Act - In the light of peculiar facts emerging from the case, HC was of the considered view that the employees of the government were expected to follow discipline and abide by orders of transfer issued to them, Professionals like doctors involved in this case are, therefore, expected to join at their places of transfer instead of involving Ministers or Members of Legislative Assembly to interject with their transfer orders - It was in these circumstances, that HC direct the petitioner to join on his promotional post at place of transfer in the Government Medical College at Aurangabad - Similarly, respondent No.3 should join at his place of transfer in Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College at Dhule - Respondent was at liberty to appoint a suitable and competent person in place of respondent No.3 in Grant Medical College at Mumbai - Petition partly allowed.


Saidul Morshalin vs State of West Bengal and another  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Buddhadeb Modak vs State of West Bengal and another  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Nisar Ahmed Khan S/o Late M. A. Khan and others vs Union of India through it's Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 13 Aug 2014]

K. C. Verma S/o Late Puran Singh vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 13 Aug 2014]

R. Kuppuswamy vs Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, High Court Campus, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State of Jharkhand Through Director General of Police and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

National Insurance Company Limited vs Makwana Nathaji Jawanji and others  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Regional Director vs Amargit Kapildev  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Viman Vaman Awale vs Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2014]
Service - Education - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, r. 12 - Seniority - Determination of - Appellant and respondent No.4 were working as teachers in Seth Gangadhar Makhriya High School - Appellant had joined the school as Assistant Teacher before respondent No.4 and was senior to him in the post of Assistant Teacher - However, respondent No.4 had acquired B.Ed. degree prior to the appellant and on that basis he was treated senior to the appellant in the category of 'Trained Graduate Teachers' and was promoted to the post of Head Master of a Primary School - Whether for promotion to the post of Head Master of a Primary School, seniority of the teacher was to be counted from the date of initial appointment, or from the date of acquisition of educational and training qualification -

Held, appellant was qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School on the date of his appointment, acquisition of higher qualification at a later date, even when such a higher qualification was requisite qualification for the higher post, would not be determinative for fixing the seniority - Further, in the instant case, there was a specific r. 12 of the Rules, which deal with seniority - Clear and unambiguous criteria for determining seniority was the continuous officiation counted from the date of acquiring the educational qualification as prescribed under Sch. B - Since the appellant was holding the requisite qualifications, i.e. B.Ed., for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, as prescribed under Sch. B to the Rules, her seniority was to be counted on the basis of continuous officiation - Since she joined the post of Assistant Teacher prior to respondent No.4, appellant would be senior to respondent No.4 -Therefore, appellant was the rightful claimant to the post of Head of the School - Depriving her of this legitimate right and making the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Head Master of the School was, therefore, clearly erroneous, which resulted in infringement of the rights of the appellant to hold that post - Appeal allowed.


A. Francis vs Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2014]

Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs State of Maharashtra and others  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]
Administrative - Constitution of India, 1950, arts.14 and 226 - Issue of license - Declined - Sustainability - Question that arose for determination in the Writ Petition filed u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India was whether the exclusion of a married daughter from the expression 'family' for being entitled to be considered for grant of retail kerosene license under Govt. Resolution dt. 20-2-2004 could be said to be legal and valid -

Held, it might be noted that after the decision of HC in one case, the General Administration Dept. of the State of Maharashtra had issued Govt. Resolution dt. 26-2-2013 and had recognized the entitlement of a married daughter to seek appointment on compassionate basis subject to she and her husband furnishing an undertaking that they would take care of the family - (1) Aparna Narendra Zambre-nee-Aparna Mohan Kulkarni; (2) Vaishali Mohan Kulkarni v (1) Assistant Superintendent Engineer, Krishna-Koyna Upsa Sinchan Project Board; (2) Collector, Office of the Collectorate; (3) State of Maharashtra, through its Department of Irrigation 2011 Indlaw MUM 669, relied on - Similarly, after the decision of HC in another case, the General Administration Dept. of the State of Maharashtra had issued Govt. Resolution dt. 19-5-2014 and had permitted nomination of a married daughter by a freedom fighter / his widow for being entitled to benefits admissible to a freedom fighter - Government Resolutions therefore recognize the entitlement of a married daughter to seek benefits in the matter of compassionate appointment in State Government service and benefits admissible to a freedom fighter - It was thus obvious that the State of Maharashtra had recognized the entitlement of a married daughter to claim compassionate appointment in State Government services or seek benefits as a nominee of a freedom fighter as the case may be - If that be so there was no reason why a married daughter could not be included in the expression 'family' as stated in Govt. Resolution dt. 20-2-2004 - Such non-inclusion would itself militate against the decision of the State Govt. to recognize entitlement of a married daughter in the case of compassionate appointment or freedom fighter's benefits as the case might be - Hence, it was one more reason by which Govt. Resolution dt. 20-2-2004 to the extent it excluded a married daughter from being considered as a member of the family of a retail license holder was discriminatory and hence violative of art. 14 of the Constitution of India also - From the discussion, HC had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Govt. Resolution dt. 20-2-2004 to the extent it excludes a married daughter from being considered as a member of the 'family' a deceased retail license holder was violative of the provisions of the arts.14, 15 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India - Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection while passing the impugned dt. 17-6-2009 as taken into consideration the position as obtained from Govt. Resolution dt. 20-2-2004 - Hence the claim of the petitioner for being treated as a legal representative of deceased was not considered as the petitioner was considered to be a married daughter - In view of HC's findings, the revision application u/cl.16 of the Licensing Order, 1979 would have to be remitted back for fresh decision - Petition partly allowed.


Union of India Through Director and others vs Mohan P. Gore  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Anand Poddar vs State of Jharkhand and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 12 Aug 2014]

Parash Ram S/o Ami Chand and others vs Professor Parvin Sinclair and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 12 Aug 2014]

Kamla Singh S/o Late Chendrej Singh vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 12 Aug 2014]

R. P. Jain S/o Late Roop Chand Jain vs Delhi Transport Corporation, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 12 Aug 2014]

Kunwara Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and others  [UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, 12 Aug 2014]

Satyendra Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Sharawan Kumar vs Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 12 Aug 2014]

Kalpana Sorte W/o Late H. R. Sorte vs Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 12 Aug 2014]

C. Rajkumar vs Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Aug 2014]

Roshan Hussain vs State of Uttarakhand and others  [UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, 12 Aug 2014]



Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer