Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Can't Claim Parity Of Pay Scale Unless There Is Complete Identity Between Two Posts [Punjab State Electricity Board &anr. V. Thana Singh & Ors.The Supreme Court observed that unless there is complete identity between two posts, the posts should not be treated as equivalent to claim parity of pay scale.The court was considering the appeal filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) wherein the issue was about parity in the pay scales of two posts Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors in Group XII of the board. The high court had ruled that there ought to be parity. Dismissal Of Plaintiff's Application To File Suit As Indigent Person Won't Bar Him From Seeking Permission To File Appeal As Indigent Person [Sushil Thomas Abraham vs. M/s Skyline Build]Dismissal of application filed by a plaintiff under by a plaintiff under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (seeking permission to institute the suit as an indigent person) by the trial court in the earlier round of litigation is not a bar against the plaintiff to file an file an application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code and seek permission from the appellate court to allow him to file an appeal as an indigent person. SC Explains Five Material Questions To Be Answered In Specific Performance Suit [Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi]While affirming concurrent judgments dismissing a suit for specific performance, the Supreme Court briefly explained the questions which are to be considered in such a suit. Reiterating that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief, the bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra listed out the requirements to be answered in a specific performance suit. Those are: High Court Cannot Stay/Quash An Order In Anticipation, Before It Is Passed [Manish S.Pardasani V. Inspector State Excise]The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot stay or/and quash the orders in anticipation, before they are passed by an authority.The bench remarked that the higher judiciary must avoid as far as possible from making any disparaging harsh remarks and strictures against any judicial/administrative officer while examining their action/order impugned in the judicial proceedings. Children Born Out Of Void Marriage Are Legitimate, Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied To Them [Union of India vs. V.R. Tripathi]In a judgment which was pronounced a month ago, the Supreme Court held that benefit of compassionate appointment scheme cannot be denied to the children born out of a second marriage.The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah dismissed appeals filed by Union of India against Bombay High Court judgment which had held in favour of applicants, who were children born out of second marriage of the deceased employee working with Indian Railways. SC Tells LIC To Pay Rs. 2 L Compensation To Man Whose Money It Held Wrongfully For About 5 Years [Madhav Hari Joshi V. Regional Manager, LIC of India]The Supreme Court, while affirming a National Consumer Commission order to refund the money the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) held wrongfully from a man for nearly five years, also asked the corporation to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh to him. Leave To Appeal Against AFT Orders Only When There Is A Point Of Law Of General Importance [Ex Lac Yogesh Pathania V. Union of India Ors.]The Supreme Court, while dismissing a plea seeking leave against an order of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), observed that such leave can be granted only when there is a point of law of general public importance involved in the appeal. Teachers Cannot Claim Gratuity Under Payment of Gratuity Act [Birla Institute of Technology vs. State of Jharkhand]The Supreme Court observed that a teacher, irrespective of the type of educational institute he/she is working, is not an 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore has no right to invoke the Act for claiming gratuity under the Act from his/her employer. Two days later, the Court stayed the operation of this judgment observing that it prima facie finds error in it and the matter would be reheard. Civil Court Has No Jurisdiction In Matters In Respect Of Which Power Has Been Conferred On NCLT [Shashi Prakash Khemka vs. NEPC Micon]The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction of the civil court is completely barred in matters in respect of which power has been conferred on the National Company Law Tribunal. The bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjay KishanKaul was considering whether an issue qua the transfer of shares has to be adjudicated by civil court or by the Company Law Board. SC Relief To Employee 'Harassed' By Karnataka Govt By Withholding Of PensionThis is a case which reflects how the appellant has been harassed by the State of Karnataka, observed the Supreme Court while granting relief to an employee whose pension was withheld by the state. The bench...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

ashok kini

Tags