'Uttarakhand State Did Not Exist In 1996': High Court Upholds Disqualification Of Gram Pradhan For Forged Education Certificate

The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the disqualification of a Gram Pradhan under Section 8(1)(q) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, holding that the educational certificate relied upon by her was not genuine. The Court observed that the Transfer Certificate purportedly issued in 1996 was inherently doubtful since it referred to the "State of Uttarakhand", although the State came...

Threat To Witness Not Grounds For Transferring Trial, Witness Protection Act Applicable: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that allegations of threats to witnesses, by themselves, do not justify the transfer of a criminal trial when the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020, provides a statutory mechanism for securing protection to witnesses. The Court observed that where such protection is available and can be invoked, transfer of the trial is unwarranted.Justice Siddhartha...

Uttarakhand High Court Grants Couple Protection Despite Objection That Groom Had Not Attained 21 Years Age At Time Of Marriage

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted protection to a couple, notwithstanding the objection that the male petitioner had not attained 21 years of age at the time of marriage. Observing that the counsellor's report indicated that the female petitioner was not ready to go with her parents and was happy in the company of the male petitioner, the Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision...

'Res Judicata Cannot Be Applied Rigidly To Interlocutory Procedural Orders Like Restoring Cross-Examination': Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that principles analogous to res judicata cannot be applied with the same rigidity to interlocutory procedural orders as they are applied to final adjudications determining the rights of parties. The Court observed that a Family Court retains sufficient jurisdiction to pass procedural orders necessary to secure a fair, complete and effective adjudication of...

Experience As Principal Can Be Counted For Appointment As Vice Chancellor : Uttarakhand High Court

A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay held that experience gained as a Principal can be counted towards the required experience as a Professor for appointment as Vice Chancellor when the post of Principal forms part of the teaching cadre and involves teaching functions. Background Facts...

Writ Maintainable Against Co-op Society If Employee's Termination Results From Statutory Registrar's Directive: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a writ petition challenging termination of service by a cooperative society would be maintainable where the termination is founded upon directions issued by the Registrar or an authority exercising statutory powers under the Cooperative Societies Act. The Court observed that in such a case, the writ petition cannot be treated as being directed only...

Protection Of Pre-Existing Service Conditions Justifies Separate Promotion Criteria For Absorbed Employees: Uttarakhand High Court

A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit held that the classification created by the 2018 Service Bye-Laws is reasonable and valid under Article 14, as it protects the pre-existing service conditions of absorbed UPPCL employees based on a binding promise, distinguishing them from petitioners who were directly appointed...

Third Party Cannot Be Directed To Pay Compensation Under Employees' Compensation Act Due To Alleged Negligence: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, can be fastened only upon the employer of the deceased employee and not upon a third party on the basis of alleged negligence. The Court observed that the Act provides for payment of compensation by employers to their employees and is unrelated to tortious liability.Justice Ravindra Maithani...

Plaintiff Not Required To Pay Court Fee Till Permission To Sue As An Indignant Person Under O.33 R.9 CPC Is Withdrawn: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that unless permission granted to a plaintiff to sue as an indigent person is first withdrawn in accordance with Order XXXIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no direction can be issued requiring the plaintiff to deposit court fee merely on the basis of an application seeking such a deposit. Observing that the defendants had not sought withdrawal of...

Summoning Under POCSO Act Impermissible When Allegations In Complaint Are Absent From Pre-Summoning Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an accused cannot be summoned under Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act merely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint when such allegations are not supported by the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The Court observed that if the ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the statements of...

Grant Of Higher Pay To Specific Employees By Court Order Doesn't Give Future Appointees Vested Right To Claim Parity: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the grant of a higher Grade Pay to a specific group of employees pursuant to a court judgment does not create a vested or legally enforceable right in favour of future appointees to claim the same benefit. The Court observed that employees appointed after the issuance of a Government Order restricting the benefit to existing employees, cannot seek...

Absconding Accused Declared As 'Proclaimed Offender' Cannot Maintain Quashing Petition Through Power Of Attorney: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an accused who has been declared a proclaimed offender and against whom a lookout circular has been issued cannot maintain a petition under Section 482 CrPC through a power of attorney holder. The Court observed that it would not exercise its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction in favour of an individual who is intentionally evading the process of...