Digi - Legal Insights

Petitioners have made a compelling case for issuing directives to Deputy Director of Education, directing to include name of Petitioner No.1 in Shalarth System and grant Shalarth Identity to him.

Denial of benefit of maternity leave to Petitioner only on ground that Petitioner was granted a technical break of 1 or 2 days in service is unjustifiable and untenable.

Administration has failed to respond to requests for Petitioners appointment based on compassionate grounds, effectively undermining intended purpose of appointment scheme hence, school Management directed to comply with Education Officers directives.

Petitioners did not provide sufficient grounds for intervention and transfers within district did not warrant extraordinary scrutiny under Article 226 of Constitution.

Voluntary retirement, while considered premature, does not deprive an employee of their pension benefits.

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 directed to propose pension calculations that incorporate 50% of Petitioners Part-Time service, under old pension scheme.

Impugned order rejecting application under Section 28-A of Act for want of certified copy and also holding barred by limitation set aside and matter remitted back to Respondent No.2 to decide application under Section 28A of Act.

Once Petitioner failed to make required deposit within 120 days, he forfeited right to appeal and this deposit must occur at time of appeal presentation and cannot be deferred until Appellate Authority decides on any application for delay condonation.

There is no reason to entertain application for impleadment of Respondent no.2 in execution of award initiated by Petitioner against Respondent no.1 for recovery of dues.

Grievance redressal mechanism is deemed adequate for current Petitioners’ complaints and committees are expected to operate effectively, taking judicial precedents into account.

Trial Court erred by allowing Respondent no.2 to participate in heirship certificate proceedings, as he is not a family member of Applicants and cannot substantiate claim for rights over property in question.

Despite objections regarding the timing and prior decisions favoring the Respondents, allowing amendment is necessary to resolve dispute and prevent litigation proliferation.

No grounds for attributing fraud to Petitioners due to their failure to complete MH-CIT course on time, leading to conclusion that Respondent Authorities must refund recovered amounts to Petitioners within 90 days.

After excluding 28 days for obtaining certified copy, appeal remains 8 days late, indicating a clear error in Appellate Courts jurisdiction in condoning delay in filing appeal.

Claim that Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch must be provided with requisition for motion was rejected, as Upa-Sarpanch had participated in meeting and had ample opportunity to address the grounds discussed.

Unexplained delay between Detaining Authoritys receipt of representation and subsequent comments sent to State Government violates constitutional mandate outlined in Article 22 (5) of Constitution, thereby invalidating detention order.

Impugned detention orders are quashed, as detention order, based on Petitioners criminal history to prevent actions prejudicial to public order, was ultimately flawed due to lack of verification of truthfulness of statements.