Even If Workman's Written Statement Is Not Rebutted, Labour Court Must Consider Evidence Before Passing Award: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that even if no rebuttal has been filed to the workman's written statement, the Labour Court must look at the evidence and apply its judicial mind while passing the order. It held that merely because of Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, the evidence cannot be ignored, and the award cannot be passed solely based on the averments made by...

State Can Clarify 'Equivalence Of Qualification' For Recruitment Even After Commencement Of Selection Process: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the State Government is competent to clarify its position regarding 'equivalence of qualification' for recruitment to a post, even after commencement of selection process.While dealing with the issue of status of the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application ('PGDCA') issued by Ewing Christian College, Allahabad which is an...

Pensionary Benefits Can't Be Withheld Indefinitely On Account Of Possible Disciplinary Proceedings In Future: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that pensionary and retiral benefits of a former employee cannot be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings on a future date.A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held thus while dismissing appeal by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited against single judge's order directing the company to...

Disabilities Attributable To Military Service; Pension Must Be Granted By Rounding Off Disability From 20% To 50% : P&H HC

A Division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that a disability not noted at the time of entry into military service is presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by service, and the disability pension must be granted by rounding off the percentage from 20% to 50%. Background Facts The respondent...

Bureaucrats Must Realise That Benefits Received By Them Are Possible Due To Freedom Fighters: HP High Court On Denial Of Pension To Widow

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh against the widow of a freedom fighter seeking pension.The Court held that despite repeated reminders by the Supreme Court regarding the purpose of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme the state authorities continued to deny pension on untenable grounds. The Court further...

Chairman/Member Of Cooperative Tribunal Entitled To Revised Pension After Deduction Of Parent Service Benefits: Uttarakhand HC

A Division bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Alok Mahra held that a person retiring as Chairman or Member of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Tribunal is entitled to recalculation of pension, gratuity, and other post-retiral benefits by including the service rendered in the Tribunal, after deducting benefits already received from the...

Family Pension For Railway Employees With 10+ Years Of Service Cannot Be Denied Due To Employer's Failure To conduct Screening: P&H High Court

A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that a casual railway employee who was granted temporary status and rendered more than 10 years of qualifying service before death is entitled to family pension benefits under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, even if he was not formally screened i.e. assessed...

Delay In Deciding Voluntary Retirement Request Can't Deprive Employee Of Pensionary Benefits: J&K HC

A Division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that non-decision on Voluntary Retirement request cannot deprive an employee of pensionary benefits post-retirement. Background Facts The respondent was appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer in the Department of Agriculture on 31.12.1983. He applied for leave...

Karnataka High Court Upholds Lokayukta Enquiry Against Asst Public Prosecutor Accused Of Malpractices Prior To Appointment

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against an order of the State Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his plea challenging the entrustment of an enquiry to the Lokayukta against him for alleged actions done prior to his appointment. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha...

Low Vision Candidates Not Eligible For Assistant Agriculture Engineer Post If Not Identified Under PwD Notification : Orissa HC

A Division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo held that Candidate with low vision disability cannot claim selection for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer when the disability is not identified as suitable for the post under the Government notification issued under Sections 32 & 33 of the...

Promotional Benefits Can't Be Denied Post-Retirement If Juniors Were Promoted Earlier: Himachal Pradesh HC

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that an employee cannot be denied the benefit of promotion and consequential benefits merely on the ground of retirement, if his juniors were promoted and regularized during his service tenure. Background Facts The respondent was working with the H.P....

Selective Regularisation Of Similarly Situated Daily Wagers In Same Establishment Violates Equity : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled against the selective regularization of similarly situated employees. It held that daily wage employees engaged in perennial work cannot be discriminated against by denying them regularization while extending the benefit to other similarly situated workers on vacant posts. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where...