Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the service regulations. This is an exercise that is undertaken by the State in discharge of its public duties and should not brook undue interference by the Court.”
“The Tribunal apparently failed to appreciate that the calculations made by the respondents overlooked proviso (b) to Rule 6 as well as Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and commutation value expressed as number of years of purchase, prejudicial to the petitioner cannot be applied.”
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that workmen can challenge their retrenchment order even after accepting retrenchment amount in case their employer has not followed the mandate of S. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Manipur High Court held that paucity of funds could not be a ground for denying payment of salaries and therefore, directed the release of salaries due payable for ten years along with interest at 6% per annum.
The Delhi High Court held that the engagement of BSNL VRS-2019 retirees in any Central Public Sector Enterprises/Government department on contractual/consultancy basis, for which the retired employees on superannuation in due course were eligible for consideration, was not in violation of Clause 8 (iii) of BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2019.
Supreme Court: In a case where the Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika/ Municipal Corporation was giving appointment to the heirs of the employees on
Jharkhand High Court: Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., while disposing of the instant petition filed against the order passed by the
On 14-07-2022, the Ministry of Finance has notified that the deposits made under the Special Deposit Scheme for Non-Government Provident, Superannuation and
Orissa High Court: S.K Panigrahi, J. dismissed the petition and remarked “no application for alteration of date of birth after five years
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J., reiterated that, interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary. The petitioner had
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and S.G. Mehare, JJ., expressed that, for condoning the interruption in service, the
“Discrimination, which is not based on any reasonable classification, is violative of all canons of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
Supreme Court: The bench of R. Subhash Reddy* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that reinstatement with full back wages is not
“Displaced persons cannot occupy government accommodation.”
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Aradhana Johri, Member (A), partly allowed the instant application whereby the applicant had sought for issuance of directions
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava (Chairperson) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve (Member) allowed an
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of R.K. Deshpande and N.B. Suryawanshi, JJ., while addressing an issue with regard to the deduction of
Supreme Court: In a 2:1 verdict, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the
In view of the unprecedented situation arising out of country-wide lockdown declared by the Government consequent to the outbreak of COVID-19, it
Jharkhand High Court: The Bench of Aniruddha Bose, C.J. and B.B. Mangalmurti, J. dismissed a petition claiming arrears of pension, post retrial