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

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 final of four parts of this Digest.Part IPart IIPart III301. 'Air India Was A Sinking Company, Interests Of Employees Protected': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against DisinvestmentCase Title: Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected MattersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Air Corporation Employees Union challenging Air India disinvestment, who feared that certain terms and conditions of service enjoyed by the employees under the erstwhile public sector management will be severely affected."Considering the fact that Air India Ltd prior to the disinvestment initiative was a sinking company, a fortuitous transformation has happened for their own good. In the opinion of this Court, various conditions of service under the SPA are the best that the Government could wrangle out from the fourth respondent towards ensuring protection of the employees' interest. Therefore, the employees conjecturing they have been treated unfairly and unjustly is misplaced and misconceived", Justice V. Parthiban observed.On the Petitioner's apprehension regarding alteration of service conditions, the Bench said,"...Any decision concerning the service conditions would obviously be taken within the framework of the existing laws on the subject. In case of any infraction, deviation or violation of any existing laws, the employees always have a recourse to judicial mechanisms. This Court, therefore, need not assume any advisory role in emphasizing the sacrosanct legal position as every private or public entity is mandated to act in accordance with law."Also Read: Air India Employees Can't Demand Pre-Decisional Hearing In Economic Policy Matters Like Disinvestment: Madras High Court302. Public Servants Should Not Use Mobile Phones During Office Hours For Personal Use: Madras High Court Orders Govt To Frame RegulationsCase Title: D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99Madras High Court has criticised the public servants who utilise mobile phones and cameras during office hours unnecessarily and directed the Government authorities to frame regulations in line with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was hearing a plea made by a Superintendent in the Tiruchirapalli Regional Workshop (Health) who wanted a direction to revoke her suspension and quash the order passed by the Director, Tamil Nadu State Health Transport Department.Since the respondent state authorities made a submission that most of the public servants are using mobile phones and cameras in government offices, the court wondered if the employees are performing their duties and responsibilities as expected of them."...If such indiscipline and misconduct are allowed to be continued, no doubt, they are committing the greatest sin to the public by getting tax payers' money as huge salary. Therefore, the Government is duty-bound to ensure that the public servants are not wandering with mobile phones inside the office during office hours and it is to be regulated in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973", the court underscored in the order.303. 'No Absolute Proposition By SC That Suspension Of Employee Can't Continue Beyond 3 Months Without Filing Chargesheet': Madras High Court (FB)Case Title: P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, KancheepuramCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100Madras High Court has held that Supreme Court has not laid down any absolute proposition of law that suspension of an employee cannot continue beyond three months in the absence of serving the charge sheet within that time, or if the charge-sheet is served without reasoned order of extension.The full bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice V. Bharathidasan concluded that the apex court case relied on by the suspended employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), would not apply and the order of suspension should be analysed based on the facts of each case, rules applicable and the gravity of charges etc.304. Mother Entitled To Maternity Leave Of 26 Weeks For 3rd Child If She Doesn't Have Custody Of Other 2 Children : Madras High CourtCase Title: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 120Justice V Parthiban of the Madras High Court has held that there is no cap on the number of deliveries for grant of maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act. The only differentiation is on the period of maternity benefit available. For a woman employee having less that two surviving children, the maximum period of...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags