Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: May 23 To May 29, 2022

Supreme Court Judgements 1. Ex- Personnel Of Armed Force Reemployed In Govt. Services Not Entitled To Pay Scales At Par With His Last Drawn Pay: Supreme Court Case Title: Union of India vs Anil Prasad |CA 4073 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513 The Supreme Court observed that an Armed Forces employee on reemployment in government service is not entitled to his pay scales at par with his last drawn pay in Armed Force. The reference to the last drawn pay in the armed forces is only to ensure that the pay computed in the civil post in the manner envisaged in para 8 of Central Civil Services (fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Order, 1986 does not exceed the basic pay (including the deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) last drawn by the personnel in the armed forces, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. 2. A Candidate Has No Legal Right To Insist That The Recruitment Process Set In Motion Be Carried To Its Logical End : Supreme Court Case Title: Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Dr. Vinay Kumar | CA 4150 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 514 The Supreme Court observed that a candidate does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end. Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The bench clarified that this does not mean that the employer is free to act in an arbitrary manner. 3. Hindu Succession Act - HUF Property Is Presumed For Be For Widow's Maintenance When She Has Its Settled & Exclusive Possession : Supreme Court Case Title: Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (D) vs Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (D) | CA 5894 OF 2019 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515 The Supreme Court observed that settled exclusive possession of a property of Hindu Undivided Family(HUf) by a widow would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance. This is more particularly when the surviving coparcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi observed. 4. 'Continuing Unlawful Activity' For Gaining Advantages Other Than Economic Or Pecuniary Is Also An "Organised Crime" Under MCOCA: Supreme Court Case Title: Abhishek vs State of Maharashtra | CrA 869 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516 The Supreme Court observed that continuing unlawful activity with the objective of gaining advantages other than economic or pecuniary is also an "organised crime" under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. There could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose said. 5. Endosulfan Tragedy :Supreme Court Slams Kerala Govt For Disbursing Compensation To Only 8 Out Of 3704 Victims Case Title: Baiju KG vs Dr VP Joy | CP(C) 244/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517 While considering a contempt plea preferred by victims of endosulfan alleging failure on the part of State of Kerala to disburse 5 lakhs compensation, the Supreme Court asked the State's Chief Secretary to hold monthly meetings to undertake the process of identification of the victims of endosulfan, ensuring disbursement of compensation of Rs 5 lakhs and taking steps to ensure provision of medical facilities. 6. Supreme Court Strikes Down Notification Which Required Private Unaided Educational Institutions In Chandigarh To Publish Their Balance Sheets Case Title: INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS' ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS. v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.| CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).3877/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 518 The Supreme Court recently struck down the clause of April 2018 notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which required private unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh to inter alia publish their balance sheets/ income and expenditure account on their websites. The part of the notification was struck down by the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, AS Oka and JB Pardiwala while considering special leave petition assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated May 28, 2021 of upholding an April 2018 notification issued by the authority by exercising powers under Section 87 of Punjab Re- organisation Act, 1966. 7. Section 405 IPC - Offence Of Criminal Breach Of Trust Is Not Attracted If There Was Not Entrustment Of Property With Accused: Supreme Court Case Title: Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh vs Surya ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: May 23 To May 29, 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags