Service Matters: Compilation Of High Court Judgments In 2022 [Part II]

LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here is a Digest on decisions relating to Service matters. This is the second of four parts of this Digest. First part here.101. If The Contract Is Extended By The Employer, It Cannot Be Allowed To Reduce The Period Of The Extension Retrospectively: Delhi High CourtCase Title: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. IJM Corporation BerhadCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 420The High Court of Delhi has held that when the employer has granted the contractor an extension of time for a specified period, it cannot turn around to contend that the extension was only provisional and it is allowed to reassess or reduce the number of days by which the execution of the contract was executed.The Single Bench of Justice Sanjiv Sachdeva has held that once the period of the contract has been extended by the employer, it cannot be allowed to retrospectively reduce the period of the extension.102. Disciplinary Proceedings Continuing Ad Infinitum Would Be Destructive Of Rule Of Law: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To CBIC OfficerCase Title: ANISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIACitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 610The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing Disciplinary Proceedings to continue ad infinitum would not only be highly prejudicial to an individual but is also destructive of the Rule of Law.A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with cross petitions filed by one Anish Gupta against the Union of India.Gupta was serving as Officer on Special Duty (Legal at the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs), when he was suspended in August 2013. He was served with a Departmental Charge Sheet/ Memorandum of Charge pursuant to an incident of July, 2013. Admittedly, no criminal investigation or prosecution was ever initiated or contemplated against him.103. Compassionate Appointment Offered To Dependant Of Deceased Employee Is A Concession, Not A Right: Delhi High CourtCASE TITLE: MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTDCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground offered to the dependant of a deceased employee is a mere concession and not a right.A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, "The whole object behind granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession and not a right."The petitioner in this case was the wife of an en employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd who passed away while in service due to a Road accident. Through the petition, the petitioner sought compassionate employment for her son under the Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the HPCL Employee's Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, as per which she was entitled to the benefits as her deceased husband would have received had he superannuated.104. Disciplinary Authority Of Parent Organization Can Issue Chargesheet Against Employee's Misconduct In Borrowing Department: Delhi High CourtCase Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 743The Delhi High Court has observed that once the employee is sent back to his parent department, it is the competent disciplinary authority of the parent organisation which can issue a charge sheet against the misconduct even though it has taken place in the borrowing department.A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which had refused to grant relief to a man, employed as an Executive Director in the Power Finance Corporation Limited, challenging a chargesheet wherein he was proposed to be proceeded against in disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions made in Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules.105. Unqualified Person Appointed On Ad-Hoc Basis Cannot Claim Right To Continue In Employment As A Matter Of Right: Delhi High CourtCASE TITLE: DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person appointed as a daily wager or on ad-hoc basis, who did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification, cannot as a matter of right claim to continue in such employment.The single judge bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, "Upon having perused the records of the case and having analysed the facts of the case at hand, it emerged that the petitioner did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification. Despite the opportunities granted, he failed to undergo the requisite professional or skill-based training and failed to furnish the certificate for the same. As such, an employee on daily wages or...

Service Matters: Compilation Of High Court Judgments In 2022 [Part II]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags