Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The primary duty of the office of a Judge is to render justice to the litigants by deciding the cases that are assigned to him and a Judge appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India is as much under oath to perform this duty, as a Judge appointed under Article 217.
The State acts as a model employer that can’t discriminate among its employees and give a benefit that is conferred under the applicable rules/instructions to some, and deny the same to others.
Supreme Court observed that allowing the instant appeal would tantamount regularizing the appellants' services as work charged from the initial appointment.
Supreme Court said that even if development of Khadi and Cottage Industry is a Directive Principle of State Policy, it does not follow as a corollary that if the State establishes a Board or any organisation to carry out the obligations under such DPSP, it cannot make separate arrangements as regards the service conditions of the employees of such a Board or organisation.
Supreme Court held that the respondent could not have been given the pensionary benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO, as before her probation period was completed, she was relieved.
Supreme Court upheld the NCLT order that the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund are not part of the liquidation estate, for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC and the same has to be paid to the employees under the stated heads.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India has withstood the temperts of classification and discrimination, but the emerging disparity to regulate the condition of pension as a result of service ought not to obliterate the object of equality in a level playing field.
The Court held that Rule 12-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules specifically permits a widow of an employee who remarries deceased husband's brother to get extraordinary pension.
The Delhi High Court remarked that the expression “unmarried” adverts to a person who is not married. It includes a woman who is single i.e., who was married but divorced and even a woman who is widowed.
The bench of KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the definition of ‘family' under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other personal laws.
Vikrant J. recorded that when the benefit of two ACPs was granted to the plaintiff after the completion of 10 and 20 years of service respectively, there is no justification for not granting him the benefit of 3rd ACP after the completion of 30 years of satisfactory service before retirement.
“References to traditions, general assumptions or prevailing social attitudes in a particular country are insufficient justification for a difference in treatment on grounds of sex, whether in favour of women or men”
On 10.02.2020, a division bench had come to the conclusion that the view taken by this Court in Preetam Singh’s case needs reconsideration after it prima facie found that the functions of the Board contemplated under Section 15 of the 1965 Act were wide enough even to cover the act of fixing service conditions of its employees. Hence, the matter was referred to a larger bench.
Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court has set aside
Tripura High Court: In a batch of writ petitions filed for directing the State Government to provide similar Pension benefit as granted
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the financial crunch/financial constraint due to additional financial
Madras High Court: B Pugalendhi J. allowed the family pension to be given to the daughter ‘petitioner’ arising out of the employment
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee, JJ. granted compassionate allowance to widow of Late Naik
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. allowed a writ petition and issued several
Kerala High Court: While adjudicating a petition filed by a breast cancer patient seeking to afford life-saving medicines which otherwise cost more