Employer Can't Deduct Excess Amount From Retiral Benefits Paid To Employee On Erroneous Fixation Of Pay Scale : Calcutta High Court

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Harish Tandon & Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that the employer cannot deduct or adjust the excess amount paid to the employee on erroneous fixation of pay scale from the retiral benefits. Background Facts The respondent employee was appointed as a lecturer in Ramkrishna Mission Shilpapitha, Belgharia, Kolkata...

Longevity Of Service Cannot Be Sole Reason For Claiming Regularisation: Kerala HC

Kerala High Court: A single bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed petitions by Cochin Port Trust firemen seeking regularisation and pay parity with permanent firemen. The court observed that the firemen were engaged only as Leave Reserve Pool (LRP) workers and were not entitled to regularisation or equal pay. Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC...

Suppression Of Pending Criminal Cases Raises Concerns About Candidate's Integrity: Orissa HC Upholds Cancellation Of Employee's Appointment

The Orissa High Court has held that notwithstanding the result, suppression of pending criminal cases per se raises concerns about a candidate's integrity and after withholding such vital information, a person cannot claim an unfettered right to seek appointment.While denying relief to the petitioner aggrieved of cancellation of his candidature, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held...

'Employer Can't Recover Excess Amount For Period Extending 5 Years', Delhi High Court Reiterates

A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Jyoti Singh held that the recovery of an excess amount of Rs. 9 lacs would not be just and fair. The Court reiterated that although an Employer has the right to recover the excess amount mistakenly paid to an Employee, the same cannot be done in cases where the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five...

Family Pension Denied Due To Non-Provincialisation Of Service Before Death; Gauhati HC Suggests To make Fresh Plea To Governor

Gauhati High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Robin Phukan disposed of a writ petition filed by a widow seeking family pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The court held that family pension could not be granted since the petitioner's husband's service was not provincialised before his death. However, it directed the widow to file an application before the...

Central Govt Employee Can't Take Benefits Of Both MACPS & Time-Bound Promotion : Supreme Court Issues Directions On Recoveries

The Supreme Court held that a central government servant was not entitled to the benefit of both time-bound promotion scheme as well as the benefit of financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme."Grant of financial upgradations as well as promotions are to be duly accounted for and taken into consideration in the MACPS," the Court observed.Holding so, the...

APSRTC Conductor's Termination Upheld; Leniency Towards Misappropriation Contrary To Public Interest: AP HC

Andhra Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam upheld the dismissal of an APSRTC conductor. He was terminated for collecting fares from passengers without issuing tickets. The court stressed on the importance of maintaining public trust in disciplinary actions. It ruled that leniency in cases of misappropriation, even involving small amounts, is contrary...

Multiple Claims For Same Accident Not Maintainable Under Employee's Compensation Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja dismissed an appeal filed a dependent mother under the Employee's Compensation Act. It held that multiple claim petitions for the same accident are not maintainable. The court ruled that when the widow and daughter of the deceased employee had already settled their claim in 2015, a subsequent petition by the...

Appointment Didn't Comply With Drivers Service Rules, Allahabad HC Denies Government Servant Status To Special Sugar Fund Employee

A division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali & Justice Jaspreet Singh held that an employee appointed under the Special Sugar Fund cannot be regarded as a government servant, as the appointment was not made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Department Drivers Service Rules, 1984. Background Facts The Special Sugar...

MOIL Ltd.'s Pension Scheme Struck Down By Bombay HC As Discriminatory; Distinction Between Resignation And Superannuation Declared Arbitrary

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Avinash G. Gharote and Abhay J. Mantri held that Clause 7(b) of the MOIL Group Superannuation Cash Accumulation Scheme is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. This clause restricted employees who resigned from receiving their pension. The court ruled that resignation alone cannot bar pensionary benefits when all other...

Doctrine Of Equality Applies To Punishments Across Different Forces Under Same Administrative Framework: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur set aside the removal from service of two CISF constables. The court found their punishment to be disproportionate compared to an ITBP officer who was involved in the same incident. It held that the doctrine of equality applies to punishments across different forces under the Ministry of Home Affairs....

Pension Calculation Is Governed By Rules In Force When Employee Joined Service; Can't Retrospectively Apply New Rules: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench: A Division Bench of Justices Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Ashutosh Kumar upheld a single-judge decision that allowed a government employee to include his territorial army service in pension calculations. The Court ruled that pension rules introduced in 1996 could not retrospectively be applied to those who joined under the Rajasthan Service...