Digi - Legal Insights

Petitioners were incorrectly promoted over Respondents Nos. 5 to 8, who are senior and eligible for posts of Naib Tahsildar despite petitioners having worked in these posts for over three years, hence, concerned competent Authority directed to appoint respondents Nos. 5 to 8 within two weeks, warning of potential contempt proceedings for noncompliance.

Termination of petitioners services from 1 September 2012 is declared illegal and set aside directing Respondents to reinstate petitioner as Shikshan Sevak/Assistant Teacher within eight weeks with continuity of service, including seniority and pension benefits, but will not receive back wages due to lack of evidence of unemployment during proceedings.

Despite the Appellants age and exoneration in departmental proceedings, statutory requirements for gratuity release remain unchanged as per Rule 69(1)(c) of the Rules.

Petitioner, a mother fully dependent on her deceased son, is entitled to family pension despite existence of three married sisters.

Although differing from Tribunals reasoning, court upheld directive for MPSC to recommend applicants for position of Dental Surgeon, requiring implementation within six weeks.

Controlling Authority was justified in entertaining respondents application and setting aside impugned order to extent of forfeiture of gratuity.

In 2019, new regulations lowered educational qualifications for role and although Appellant later achieved required qualifications, non-acceptance of his promotion stood out as a significant injustice.

Subsequent promotions granted to appellant to posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer is held to be valid and Appellant shall also be entitled to further promotion from date on which he became eligible thereof.

In reviewing scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, findings of impugned judgment align with established legal standards.

Despite valiant efforts of counsel for Respondent, impugned judgments as also judgment passed by Services Tribunal stand set aside and termination of Respondent from post of Police Constable stands restored.

High Court erroneously issued writ of mandamus without confirming whether Governor had exercised his discretion on matter and it would have been more appropriate for High Court to request Governor to review request first.

Recruitment rules did not mandate publication of candidates marks in written examination, nor was there evidence that respondents had passed it hence, impugned order, in so far as it directs Appellants to provide appointment to respondents to post of Plant Attendant, is set aside.

Distinction between selection and promotion posts is emphasized, noting that right to appointment under 2021 Rules does not exist for individuals unless conducted through prescribed selection methods, which Government may alter thus, Respondents cannot claim rights to ARTO position outside these established rules.

Timeline for in-service teachers to obtain this qualification has been extended from two years to three years, with a new deadline set for August 31, 2028, to ensure continuity in education and mitigate risk of employment jeopardy for teachers.

Central Governments earlier decision failed to consider uninterrupted delays in concluding these proceedings, warranting fresh review of appellants VRS notice.

Appellant, as widow of deceased and other Appellants, are entitled to their respective pensionary benefits and arrears accordingly.

Dependent quota aims to provide financial relief to families of deceased dealers, ensuring continuity in public distribution system hence, Competent authority shall issue necessary allotment order in favour of Appellant within period of four weeks.

Court have carefully perused Committees Final Report and largely agree with its recommendations for resolving outstanding claims and ensuring equitable disbursal of dues to affected employees.

Appellant shall be entitled to benefits extended in terms of Board Orders and no benefit accrued in his favour shall be withdrawn.

Division Benchs view on PSTM quota and directive to disclose marks for candidates outside consideration zone is upheld.