Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 03 To July 09

Nominal IndexUnion Of India Vs Altaf Ahmad Mir 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 169State of J&K Vs Gulji Bhai & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 170State of J&K Vs Rajinder Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 171M/s Delton Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of J&K and another 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 172Sh. Krishan Singh Jasrotia (deceased) represented through LRs Bimla Devi and others Vs Union of India and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 173State of J&K Vs Tariq Hussain 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 174Raman Masih Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 175Ashfaq Ahmed Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 176Judgments/Orders:CCS Rules Cannot Be Applied To CRPF Constables Unless CRPF Rules Are Silent On A Specific Matter: Jammu & Kashmir High CourtCase Title: Union Of India Vs Altaf Ahmad Mir.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 169The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while reiterating that the service conditions of a CRPF Constable (probationer) are governed by the CRPF Rules 1955 has emphasised that the Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules can only be applied if the CRPF Rules do not explicitly address a specific issue.If a case is already covered by the CRPF Rules, there is no need to refer to the General Rules like the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, it explained.Jammu & Kashmir High Court Upholds Acquittal Of BSF Personnel In Army Patrol Firing Case That Occurred During Kargil WarCase Title: State of J&K Vs Gulji Bhai & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 170The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the acquittal of Border Security Force (BSF) personnel accused in the highly controversial Army patrol firing case that took place on the fateful night of July 16/17, 1999 during the Kargil War."Unfortunately, respondents have been roped in, merely on the basis of suspicion, otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that respondents had deliberately fired upon the Army patrol party", a bench of Justices Sanjay Dhar and Rajesh Sekhri observed.No Compulsory Retirement Merely On Committee Recommendation, Competent Authority Must Be Satisfied Of 'Bonafide' Public Interest: J&K High CourtCase Title: State of J&K Vs Rajinder KumarCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 171Shedding light on the criteria for compulsory retirement of government employees under the J&K Civil Services Regulations, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the decision to retire an employee prematurely cannot be solely based on recommendations from a committee. Instead, the competent authority must independently form a bona fide opinion that the retirement is in the interest of the institution, it ruled.Employer Making EPF Contribution Under Central Act Can't Be Compelled To Contribute For Same Employee Under State Act: Jammu & Kashmir High CourtCase Title: M/s Delton Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of J&K and anotherCitation:2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 172The Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that employers cannot be forced to contribute to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) under both the Central Employees Provident Fund Act and the Jammu and Kashmir EPF Act for the same employee. Making duplicate contributions would amount to doubling the liability on the part of the employer, the court emphasised.25 Yrs On, Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Departmental Promotion Committee To Consider Promotion Of Cop PosthumouslyCase Title: Sh. Krishan Singh Jasrotia (deceased) represented through LRs Bimla Devi and others Vs Union of India and othersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 173The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the Home Department to constitute a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider the posthumous promotion of a late police officer to the rank of Assistant Commandant. The court's decision came after a prolonged legal battle spanning 25 years, in which the petitioner had sought rightful promotion and recognition for his service. Sarcastic Remarks, Mere Harassment By Husband Due To Marital Discord Not 'Abetment Of Suicide': Jammu & Kashmir High CourtCase Title: State of J&K Vs Tariq Hussain.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 174Mere harassment of a wife by her husband or in-laws due to matrimonial discord or sarcastic remarks per se does not attract the offence of abetment of suicide, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held. While upholding the acquittal of a man from charges under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) after his wife set herself ablaze and died, a single bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed,"There may be various instances of matrimonial discord between husband and wife and at times wife being constantly taunted and subjected to sarcastic remarks in the house of her in-laws may be driven to commit suicide. However, such instances are normal wear and tear of a matrimonial life. In my opinion mere harassment of a wife by her husband or in-laws due to matrimonial discord or sarcastic remarks perse does not attract Section 306 of RPC (abetment of suicide)."Jammu & Kashmir High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction After 17 Yrs, Says Non-Compliance With Section 313 ...

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 03 To July 09

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags