Digi - Legal Insights

Petition is substantially a service selection challenge by an unsuccessful candidate who has no indefeasible right to appointment and who seeks vague direction for appointment of some other candidate and such Petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of Constitution.

Law does not limit protections to disabilities arising from service and that employer is obligated to explore reasonable accommodations rather than opting for invalidation.

Married daughter of deceased employee is entitled for appointment on compassionate basis hence, impugned communication issued by respondent No.4 is quashed and Respondent shall consider application of petitioner No.1 on its own merit.

Both petitioner and respondent No.4 scored 41 marks in interview for an instructor post, granting management discretion to make appointment hence, no reasons to interfere with appointment of respondent No.4 as an instructor in respondent No.1s school.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to give approval to selection of Petitioner to post of Professor in Computer Science and Engineering forthwith.

Incentive marks and all other benefits available to Petitioner as an in-service candidate serving in a hilly area made available in accordance with law.

Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) that exclude married daughters as dependents, except in specific cases, are considered unconstitutional and will be nullified hence, Respondent is directed to suitably amend Guidelines of 2019 and impugned order issued by respondent is quashed and set aside.

50% of service rendered as Part Time Librarian is liable to be reckoned for purpose of computing qualifying service for pension, along with entire service rendered as a full time employee hence, impugned order passed by respondent no.2, denying benefit of Old Pension Scheme to petitioner is quashed and set aside.

Impugned communications/orders issued by respondent No.3 are quashed and Respondents are directed to fix and pay petitioners pension on basis of his last drawn pay for post of Draftsman and to release all consequential retiral benefits in his favour within period of three months.

Recovery of excess salary payments to petitioner due to improper pay fixation and promotional orders, it is determined that such recovery is not permissible.

Petitioner satisfies eligibility criteria prescribed under Notification dated 16/02/2022 hence, Respondents shall consider petitioners case for promotion to post of Professor strictly in accordance with said Notification and other applicable statutory requirements, without insisting upon additional condition of five years' service as Associate Professor.

Petitioner, having low vision, qualifies under a measurable disability hence, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to appoint petitioner on post of Seasonal Spraying Field Worker under reservation of Disabled Person (PH-A-Low Vision).

Respondents directed to pay petitioners retiral benefits, using an age of superannuation of 60 years and Principal of Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Polytechnic must prepare and forward payment bill to relevant authority within one month, with subsequent release of pension arrears to occur within two months thereafter.

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.