Digi - Legal Insights

Denial of benefit under clause 2.12 of Regulation 2019 to Petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Professor while regulation was in effect, is unjustified.

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.

There has been no resolution passed by Respondents to create a permanent post hence, Petitioners are not entitled to permanent employment relief.

Services of Respondent-employee are terminated by way of compulsory retirement after holding enquiry against him hence, Respondent No.1 is not entitled to receive gratuity.

If timely recruitment had occurred, Petitioners would have been included in seniority list and potentially absorbed and argument for age relaxation was deemed unfounded given their proactive legal pursuit.

In a case concerning appointment of teachers, Education Officer did not inform Management about number of surplus teachers available when filling the posts then, it was determined that Management had not erred in issuing an advertisement for appointments.

Order against Petitioner is deemed illegal due to lack of due process in disciplinary proceedings leading to her suspension hence, Petitioner would be entitled for remainder portion of her salary from date on which suspension order was served upon her until today, by treating her ‘on duty’.

Pension is not a matter of charity or discretion, it is a legal right to which the employee is entitled on account of his long and dedicated service.

Decision to conduct fresh inquiry was deemed unjustifiable, as Corporation did not adequately address evidence or conclusions from initial inquiry, rendering second inquiry impermissible by law.

Petitioner possessed necessary educational qualifications and caste validity certificate for Scheduled Tribe category hence, termination of Petitioner is illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

Only those certified as not part of Creamy Layer by specified date qualify for OBC benefits and State Government revisit three-year validity rule for OBC Certificates, suggesting that it undermines certificates intended purpose due to potential income changes over time.

Order of termination unsustainable due to absence of a domestic inquiry amid serious allegations and criminal proceedings.

Tribunals order of illegal termination upheld, affirming that reinstatement should be accompanied by back wages as management had unreasonably opted not to re-employ terminated workers despite their availability.

Decision taken by the State to cancel selection process and appointments cannot be faulted with.

Petitioners have failed to comply with previous judicial directives, including two undertakings regarding Respondent No.1s status, indicating willful defiance of Court orders.

Impugned orders are not lengthy orders, but reasons assigned for rejecting proposals cannot be faulted.

Respondent, who has served Petitioner for over 8 years and completed 240 days, is entitled to notice before retrenchment and compensation.

If qualifying service is complete, pension cannot be denied on premise that employee was working as an Untrained Teacher.

Excess payment has been made to Petitioner for period in excess of five years before order of recovery made thus, Respondent no.4-Deputy Chief Executive Officer directed to repay amount of Rs.1,35,518/- to Petitioner.

Petitioner cannot claim absolute office access due to his reliance on administration and public office work, despite multiple declarations of "Personanon-grata".