Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J., dismissed a writ petition whereby the petitioner sought directions against respondents for granting him the benefit of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 1973 (the 1973 Rules) with effect from the date of his first appointment in the year with consequential benefits of subsequent pay revisions.

The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the 1973 Rules.

The Court observed that the petitioner did not raise any objection when he was regularized initially. Further, the petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the timely pay scale revisions which were given to him and it was only after the High Court decided a petition filed by some other aggrieved persons who were somewhat similarly situated as the petitioner, that the petitioner raised his voice. The Court observed that the petitioner was nothing but a fence sitter who was waiting for the outcome of an ongoing litigation. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, wherein It was held that when a specific group of employees are given a benefit by the Court it shall apply to all the persons similarly situated to the litigants, however, there is an exception if the similarly situated persons are liable for laches and delays as well as acquiescence.

The Court held that the petitioner remained silent for a good amount of time and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that his counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts. Hence the petitioner cannot claim the benefit conferred upon the employees who were similarly situated to him and who had successfully won the litigation. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed by the Court. [Mangat Ram v. State of J&K,2018 SCC OnLine J&K 712, order dated 05-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Amit Sthalekar, J. ordered the petitioner (wife of a retired government servant) to vacate the government quarter occupied by her unathorisedly even after retirement of her husband who was a government servant.

The petitioner was unauthorisedly occupying the government quarter in question which was allotted to her husband when he was in government service. The husband of the petitioner had retired from government service twelve years ago but still the petitioner continued to occupy the quarters. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents be restrained from compelling the petitioner from vacating the said quarters in view of the order of the State Women Commission.

The High Court was of the opinion that the submission of the counsel for the petitioner was misconceived. The Court held that the State Women Commission had absolutely no jurisdiction to interfere in the service matters of an employee which are governed by statutory rules. Petitioner’s husband had retired from service twelve years ago; the petitioner continued to occupy the said quarters in wholly illegal and unauthorized manner. Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to vacate the government quarter within fifteen days. [Asha Rai v. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran BLW, 2018 SCC OnLine All 435, dated 20-04-2018]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S.Ravindra Bhat and AK Chawla, JJ., dismissed a writ petition challenging the Roster Point System adopted by the University of Delhi. The system was challenged on grounds of arbitrariness and deprivation of SC, ST and OBC categories in fair representation in the various cadres of the colleges of the University as well as in the various levels of posts.

The respondents questioned the maintainability of the proceedings, contending that an identical petition had been filed before and rejected by the Court. The respondents claimed that the said petition was dismissed on grounds that the petitioners lacked standing. The petitioners claimed that the said ruling ought not to unduly restrict the Court from exercising it’s jurisdiction. The Court however, relied on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 267 : AIR 1997 SC 1125, stating that all service matters are to be initiated first before the Administrative Tribunal by parties competent to do so. The judgment is also decisive in that the Administrative Tribunals are empowered to adjudge on the validity of policies and statutes as far as they pertain to service matters. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. [O.K. Yadav v. University of Delhi,2018 SCC OnLine Del 7662, decided on 08.03.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Forum of SC and ST legislators and Parliamentarians- a non legal entity filed a PIL before the Delhi High Court alleging that that E-8 Level officers of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) are illegally not being considered for promotion. The Court said that in case some persons are not being considered for promotion, then only such persons have locus standi to approach the Courts with their grievance.

Further it stated that someone else can’t approach the Court on their behalf especially, in service matters. For this, the Court relied on Bholanath Mukherjee v. Ramakrishna Mission Vivevkananda Centenary College, (2011) 5 SCC 464 in which the Supreme Court had held that in service matters a Public Interest Litigation petition does not lie.

Observing that the petitioner was a non-legal person, the Court held that it being only a non-legal person did not have any personal interest, and the personal interest would be of individuals who are employees of respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of locus standi. [Forum of SC and ST legislators and Parliamentarians v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7217, decided on 27.02.2017]