LATEST SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
Hira Lal and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Apr 2009]
Criminal - IPC,1860, ss. 420, 462, 467, 468 and 471 - CrPC, 1973, s. 482 - Appellants and respondent No.3 (complainant) are co-sharers - Land dispute between parties - Dispute as to validity of Will - Civil suit was filed by respondent challenging the will as forged one - Respondent No.3 filed a complaint petition u/ss. 420, 462, 467, 468 and 471 IPC contending that the Will was forged and fabricated document - Complaint dismissed - Revision application also dismissed - Respondent No.3 filed another application u/s. 156(3), CrPC making similar allegations - Magistrate issued summons - Appellants filed application u/s. 482, CrPC, which was dismissed - Hence, present appeal - Interference with criminal proceeding by High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s. 482, CrPC is permissible if the allegations contained in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, commission of an offence is not disclosed - Held, dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature - Will in question is a registered Will - Whether it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not is a matter which may appropriately fall for determination in a testamentary proceeding - What was the share of the respective co-sharers is a question which is purely a civil dispute; a criminal court cannot determine same - It was not a fit case where cognizance of offence could have been taken or any summons could have been issued - Impugned judgment set aside - Appeal allowed.
Satyapal vs State of Haryana [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Apr 2009]
Criminal - Rape - IPC,1860, s. 376 - Appellant convicted u/s. 376, IPC - Conviction challenged - Prosecutrix was a minor aged about 11 years - Prosecutrix was examined medically after a long time - Explanation offered by PW-5 in this behalf, is clear and sufficient - Despite passage of a long time, an injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix was found - Held, for the purpose of satisfaction of the ingredients of rape, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration - Testimony of the prosecutrix and evidence of PW-5 absolutely reliable - Impugned judgment does not warrant any interference - No merit in this appeal - Appeal dismissed.
Rumi Dhar vs State of West Bengal and Another [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Apr 2009]
Criminal - Practice and Procedure - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 142 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s. 482 - IPC, ss. 120-B, 239, 420, 467, 468 and 471 - Whether criminal proceeding should be dropped after settlement having been arrived at by and between the parties? - Held, quashing criminal proceeding after settlement would amount to an abuse of the process of Court as it is crime against the society particularly when both the learned Special Judge as also the High Court have found that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant herein for framing charge - Appeal dismissed
Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs Maruti Corporation and Others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 Apr 2009]
Land & Property - Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 - Specific performance - Direction to refund of the earnest money - Appeal pending - Interim orders - Held, not a case where the appellant and the other co-owners had violated any restraint order passed by the Court in transferring the plots in question to the 280 transferees - Transfers were effected at a point of time when there was no injunction or restraint order against the appellant and the other owners of the property and as far as the said transfers are concerned, the only order that could have been passed on the said application is the order which was passed at the first instance - Restraint order on the transferees is bad - Appeals disposed of.
State of Madhya Pradesh vs Rameshwar and Others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 Apr 2009]
Criminal - Socio-Economic - IPC, 1860, ss. 409, 420, 120-B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ss.13(1)(d), 13(2) - Question of status of the respondents as 'public servants' - Held, respondent Nos.1 and 3, in their capacity as the Chairman and Executive Officer of the Bank, come within the definition of 'public servant' - High Court in revision erroneously quashed the charges framed against the respondents - Appeals disposed of.
(1) Brahma Associates, Pune; (2) Dhareshwar Promoters and Builders, Pune; (3) Kumar Behary Rathi, Pune; (4) Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates, Pune; (5) Tushar Developers, Pune vs (1) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Osd), Pune; (2) Income Tax Officer, Pune; (3) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune [ITAT, 06 Apr 2009]
Income Tax and Direct Taxes - Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 80IB(10) - Whether deduction u/s. 80IB(10), as applicable prior to 1st April 2005, is admissible in case of a 'housing project' comprising residential housing units and commercial establishments? - Whether could non residential use of built up area in a housing project could, by itself, lead to denial of deduction u/s. 80 IB(10)? - Held, commercial use of built up area, by itself, does not vitiate the claim of deduction under section 80 IB(10) - Deduction u/s. 80IB(10), as applicable prior to 1st April 2005 is admissible in case of a 'housing project' comprising residential housing units and commercial establishments - 90% or more of the total built up area is used for dwelling units, in accordance with the scheme of section 80 IB(10), the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) will not be declined - Deduction u/s. 80IB(10) is available in respect of profits of housing project as a whole, and, as such, it is not relevant as to what is the portion of profits which can be said to be attributable to residential units - Limit on commercial use of built up area as prescribed by cl. (d) of s. 80IB(10) has no retrospective application, and it applies only w.e.f the assessment year 2005-06 - Appeals disposed of.
(1) Puran Maharashtra Automobiles Gandhi Bhaan, Aurangabad; (2) Murlidhar, Aurangabad; (3) Neena, Aurangabad; (4) Satyam Automobiles; (5) Murlidhar Khimandas Rijwani, Aurangabad; (6) Harish, Aurangabad vs (1) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad; (2) Naib-Tahasildar (Revenue-1) Tahsil Office, Aurangabad; (3) Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, Pune [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2009]
Banking and Finance - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 s. 14 - Exercise of power - Appeal to challenge order dismissing petition filed to challenge notice issued u/s. 13(2) of SRFAESIA, 2002 - Application filed for taking action u/s. 14 of SRFAESIA, 2002 allowed and appellants directed to hand over possession of property to respondents - Whether powers u/s. 14 of SRFAESIA, 2002 are to be exercised only District Magistrate? - Appellant contended that Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no power u/s. 14 of SRFAESIA, 2002 to order handing over of property - Held, once the secured creditor is entitled to take possession in view of the provisions of sub-s. (4) of s. 13, the only thing he is required to do, is to make an application in writing to the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - If the two conditions stipulated in s. 14 are satisfied, then the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate has no other option but to take steps for taking possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor - It can thus clearly be seen that no element of quasi-judicial functions are to be performed by the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate while exercising powers u/s. 14, but he is only required to perform act of executionery nature in taking possession and delivering it to the secured creditor, therefore contention of the appellants, that the District Magistrate is a persona designata and that he cannot delegate the powers to other officer cannot be accepted - In any case, sub-s. (2) of s. 14 of SRFAESIA, 2002 permits the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take steps for giving effect to the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 14 of SRFAESIA, 2002 - Appeal dismissed.
Sudarshani, Wardha vs Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Nagpur; (2) Savitribai Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wardha, Through Its Secretary; (3) President, Wamanrao Baliram Choudhari, Nagpur; (4) Arun Choudhari, Director, Savitribai Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wardha; (5) Ashok, Savitribai Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wardha; (6) Vinayak Govindrao Dandekar, Wardha; (7) Education Officer, Wardha [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, s. 4(A) - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, r. 31 - Power of Management - Petition to challenge order reducing rank of petitioner - No unanimity amongst the members of the enquiry committee in respect of findings as well as penalty and no unanimity between enquiry committee and State Awardee Head Master with respect to number of charges proved against petitioner, thus Management took upon itself to decide what penalty should be imposed - Whether Management has the power to decide the penalty to be imposed and whether decision of Management imposing punishment needs to be set aside? - Held, decision about the penalty, on the basis of the findings, has to be taken by the enquiry committee itself and that decision has to be communicated to Management - Management has to implement that decision - MEPSRA, 1977 and MEPSR, 1981 do not give powers to the Management to take decision as to what punishment or penalty should be imposed on the basis of finding of the enquiry committee - When the enquiry committee could not come to any conclusion and could not decide as to what penalty should be imposed, it is a fit case where Director should invoke his powers u/s. 4A of MEPSRA, 1977 and after hearing the Management as well as the employee, he shall take a decision and the penalty may be awarded - Petition allowed.
S. Lalitha vs (1) Nagalakshmi; (2) Saradhammal; (3) Usha; (4) Latha [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 03 Apr 2009]
Practice and Procedure - Limitation Act, 1963, s. 5 - Condonation of delay - Applications for condonation of delay in filing petition under O. 9, r. 13 to set aside the exparte decree, allowed - Hence revision petitions - Respondents submitted that their father was defendant in suit for recovery of possession against whom exparte decree had been passed and father had not informed anything about the suit till his death to respondent - Whether trial court was justified in allowing applications for reason citied by respondents? - Held, there is absolutely no material placed before the trial Court to show that during the pendency of suit the respondents were impleaded as LRs of the appellant; under such circumstances an opportunity must be given to the respondents herein to defend the case in suit - Petitions dismissed
K. Shoukath Ali vs (1) K. L. Kirubakaran; (2) L. Jaya; (3) Geetha; (4) Ranga; (5) Rani; (6) Dr. N. R. Prithivirajan; (7) V. Devi; (8) R. Ravichandran; (9) V. Nambirajan; (10) V. Devi; (11) R. Ravichandran; (12) V. Nambirajan [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 03 Apr 2009]
Practice and Procedure - Civil Procedure - CPC, 1908, O. 7, r. 11 - Dismissal of suit - Applications for grant of interim injunction rejected by Additional District Munsif - Appeals against - First appellate court dismissed appeal against order of dismissal of application for interim injunction as well as suit - Whether first appellate court without an application under O. 7, r. 11 of CPC, 1908 for rejecting of plaint erred in passing order for removal of suit from Additional District Munsif? - Held, First appellate Judge, while dismissing the CMAs has no power to dismiss the suit itself - First appellate Court/Subordinate Judge ought to have given directions or liberty to the defendant to file appropriate application before the trial Court under O. 7, r. 11 of CPC, 1908 for the rejection of the plaint - Petitions allowed.
R. Rajendran, Agasthiavanam Biological Park (Sip), Forest Headquarters Trivandrum vs (1) Union of India, Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Forest and Environment, New Delhi; (2) State of Kerala, Chief Secretary To The Government of Kerala, State Secretariat, Trivandrum; (3) Principal Secretary, Forest and Wild Life Department, Trivandrum; (4) Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotions) Regulations, 1966 - Non-promotion to the cadre of Indian Forest Service - Held, integrity certificate shall be acted upon only when it is received during the currency of the select list, whose currency has been prescribed - Albeit due to the prolonged criminal proceedings, in respect of which the applicant has no control, the proceedings could come to an end only after about fourteen years, whereas the validity of the panel extends for a very limited period as contained in regn. 7(4) - Applicant is not entitled to the prayer of consideration for promotion to the cadre of IFS with retrospective effect from 01-01-1994 - Application dismissed.
K. Ramachandran vs (1) Union of India, Secretary To Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi; (2) Director General, All India Radio, Akashvani Bhawan, New Delhi [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Promotion - Denial of promotion on merit and on limitation - Scope of review - Held, in Ajith Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (2000(1) SLR 622 S.C held that A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction or a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing - Application dismissed.
K. Sumandran, Stenographer Grade III, Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, National Service Scheme, Thiruvananthapuram vs (1) Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, New Delhi; (2) Joint Secretary, Government of India, Youth Affairs and Sports, New Delhi; (3) Deputy Programme Advisor, National Service Scheme Regional Centre, Thiruvananthapuram; (4) G. P. Sajith Babu, Youth Officer and Drawing Disbursing Officer (D.D.O), National Service Scheme Regional Centre, Thiruvananthapuram [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Health & Drug - Medical reimbursement - Whether applicant is entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his daughter? - Held, for a claim to be settled, requisite documents shall have to be produced or where permissible, sanction for waiver of the same has to be requested for - Fault remains with the applicant and not with the authorities - Tribunal could well direct the respondents to settle the bills within a fixed time frame from the date of receipt of the requisite documents from the applicant - Application disposed of.
S. Arputham vs (1) Union of India, General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai; (2) Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Trivandurum; (3) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Trivandrum [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Practice & Procedure - Pension benefits - Limitation - Delay of 1957 days - Held, when the applicant states that in 2005 he came to know that others have got their casual labour services counted through court orders, obviously, the applicant would have known that in view of there being no response, he should move the Tribunal - No justification for condonation of delay - Application dismissed on limitation.
C. N. Sukumari Antherjenam, Stenographer Gr.1 (Retd.) Office of The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla vs (1) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin; (2) Central Board of Direct Taxes, Chairperson, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi; (3) Pay and Accounts Officer (Central Civil Pensions), Central Pension Accounting Officer, Government of India, New Delhi; (4) Union of India, Secretary To Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Issue relates to filling up of vacancies of Inspector of Income Tax on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 20.1.2004 - Held, It is for the competent authority to look into the matter and take a decision whether the applicant could be promoted on adhoc basis against the slot earmarked for the ST community which is kept unfilled for want of qualified hands - Application disposed of.
T. K. Vijayakumari vs (1) Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Sample Survey Organisation (Field Operations Division), New Delhi; (2) Additional Director (Admn), Nsso (Fod), New Delhi; (3) Deputy Director, Nsso(Fod), Kerala (South Region), Thiruvananthapuram [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Family Pension - Whether the second spouse is entitled for family pension or not when a Government servant after retirement from service contracts a second marriage on the demise of the first spouse particularly when the factum of such second marriage has not been reported to the office from where he/she had retired from service, during his/her life time? - Held, family pension is admissible in the case of a Government servant dies after retirement from service if he was in receipt of pension as on the date of death of pensioner - Pension is not a bounty but it is a fundamental right of an employee - If pension is a right, family pension is also a right - Same cannot be denied to a person who is entitled for the same - Directed respondents to conduct necessary verification, if necessary, and take a decision in the matter and convey to the applicant - Application disposed of.
P. M. Padmanabhan, Working As Postman (Officiating), Vadakara Head Post Office, Gds Md, Vadakara Postal Division, Vadakara vs (1) A. Abdusalam, Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadakara Division, Vadakara; (2) Hilda Abraham, Postmaster General, Northern Region, Kozhikode; (3) Dr. Uday Balakrishnan, Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Practice & Procedure - Direction to take immediate steps for filling up the promotional vacancies in the cadre of Postman for the year 2004-05 in Vadakara Post Office and to consider the applicant in accordance with his seniority and his eligibility in terms of the Recruitment rules - Contempt petition - Held, chronological sequence of events reflect that the respondents have given due priority to the case and action taken has been satisfactory - Petition dismissed.
Hajiromma. C.P vs (1) Principal General Manager, Telecom. Bsno, Ernakulam; (2) Divisional Manager, Telecom. Bsnl, Kawarathy [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Regularisation - Held, it is only for the respondent department to ascertain from the record as to whether the earlier panel prepared with reference to Employment Exchange sponsored candidate only and whether break in service for a substantial period was exempted and arrive at a judicious decision in regard to the representation of the applicant - Application disposed of.
(1) Suresh K. K., Part Time Casual Labourer, Central Excise Hqrs. Office, Cochin; (2) Radhamani T. R.; (3) Sajeev R., Cochin; (4) Prasanth P. R., Part Time Casual Labourer, Central Excise Ernakulam Ii Division; (5) Beevi Kunju K. H.; (6) Anwar S.; (7) Santhosh M. G., (8) Geetha N. M.; (9) Latha K. K.; (10) Thadevous K. V.; (11) Pavithran A. K.; (12) Selvaraj B. M.; (13) Baiju K. P. vs (1) Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Delhi; (2) Commissioner of Central Excise, Office of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Cochin [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Regularisation - Whether applicants are entitled to the claim of regularization on the basis of the directions given by S.C in the case of State of Karnataka vs Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1? - Held, when the respondents on consideration arrived at a conclusion that such a regularization cannot be possible as one of the spinal conditions viz that the individuals should have been employed against sanctioned posts is not fulfilled, there is no further scope - Application dismissed.
(1) K. P. Somasekharan Nair, Office Superintendent, Trivandrum; (2) S. Soundarajaj, Office Superintendent, Kochi; (3) P. Leela, Office Superintendent, Alleppey; (4) C. Beenakumari, Office Superintendent, Income Tax Office, Guruvayoor; (5) B. Satheesan, Office Superintendent, Trichur vs (1) Madhu Mohan Pillai, Senior Tax Assistant, Kollam; (2) C. K. Sajini, Senior Tax Assistant, Kochi; (3) Roy M. K., Senior Tax Assistant, Kochi; (4) Jayasree S Nair, Senior Tax Assistant, Alwaye; (5) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi; (6) Secretary, Central Bord of Direct Taxes, New Delhi; (7) Union of India, Secretary To Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Practice and Procedure - Application for review of order by non-parties - Codonation of delay of 117 days - Data Entry Operators not considered, despite they were having same qualification and eligibility conditions - Applicant contended that assumption in the order that the recruitment rules relating to the Senior Tax Assistants and Tax Assistants of the Central Board of Excise & Customs and that of Income Tax Department were identical was not factually correct - Held, order under view has already been challenged before the High Court of Kerala in a Writ Petition and when matter is already under the consideration of High Court, it is improper to entertain review application - Review applicants have not established that there was any error apparent on the face of the records - Only reason given by the review applicants for condonation of delay that they were not aware of the order of Tribunal which is not sufficient submission for the condonation of delay - Application dismissed.
K. P. Manohar Babu, Sub-Post Master, Kakkattil Post Office, Vadakara Postal Division and Taluk vs (1) Union of India, Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Communications, (Department of Posts) New Delhi; (2) Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Calicut; (3) Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadkara Division, Vadakara [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, r. 16 - Application to challenge cancellation of transfer order - Original transfer order posted applicant at Ahiyur but then transfer order cancelled and he was transferred to Kallaci - Respondent pleased that applicant's transfer from Kakkattil to Ahiyur had become necessary in view of various irregularities committed by the applicant when he was at Kakkattil Post Office - Held, decision in this regard in the disciplinary proceeding may be taken within six weeks as the outcome of the proceedings has close nexus with regard to the transfer of the applicant - Application disposed of.
(1) P. M. George, Station Master Grade II, Padil Railway Station, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat; (2) Karunakumar C, Station Master Grade II, Padil Railway Station, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat vs (1) Union of India, General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai; (2) Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai; (3) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Apr 2009]
Service - Application for declaration that applicants were entitled to continue to maintain their lien in Palghat Division - Applicants, Ex-servicemen, belonged to Palghat Division, were absorbed temporarily in Palghat Division but on formation of new Salem Division, carved out mainly from Palghat Division, they apprehended their shifting to Salem Division, hence application - Held, if they are prepared to serve under Salem Division retaining lien at Palghat it may not serve any purpose as their physical presence may not be there in Palghat instead within Salem Division if they are posted in such a fashion they may remain close to Palghat Division that may be of much immense use to the applicants - Direction issued - Application disposed of.
M. C. Vijayan, Mail Guard, Sub Record Office Railway Mail Service Tv Division, Kayamkulam vs (1) Senior Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, Tv Division, Trivandrulm; (2) Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum; (3) Union of India, Secretary, Department of Posts, New Delhi; (4) Director, National Commission For Sc and St, Kerala and Lakshadweep, Trivandrum [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 02 Apr 2009]
Service - Application to challenge order stating that there was no vacancy of Sorting Assistant under SC quota for departmental candidates - Tribunal had directed respondents to take up reassessment of the cadre strength and revising the special representation roster strictly on the basis of the instructions for the operation of the roster also taking into account the roster maintained for direct recruitment in accordance with stipulation in OM - Applicant alleged that reassessment of the vacancies had not been done as directed by Tribunal and the reservation roster and instructions relating to relaxed standards in the case of SC/ST quota were not applied in the case of the applicant - Respondent explained the reasons for variation in cadre strength shown in rosters maintained for recruitment which is to be done for promotion and direct recruitment quota in 1:1 proportion and 50% cadre strength in departmental quota was not maintained due to less number of staff appearing for limited departmental competitive examination and still lesser number qualifying in the same and unfilled vacancies in promotion quota were deployed to direct recruitment quota during the following recruitment years, to avoid huge back log in departmental vacancies - Held, Tribunal is satisfied that the respondents did comply with the order given in order - Respondents should verify whether there was any unfilled vacancy of SC, in any of the units in the RMS/Postal Divisions for the 2003 departmental examination in which the applicant participated - Application disposed of.
K. Govindan Nair, Regular Mazdoor, Departmental Canteen, Central Telephone Exchange, Trichur vs (1) Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi; (2) Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Thiruvananthapuram; (3) General Manager, Telecommunications, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Thrissur; (4) Director General, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 02 Apr 2009]
Service - CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, r. 37A - Application for regularization and for pension benefits - Applicant, joined as Halwai Maker (Cook) during September, 1981 in the Departmental Canteen, was approved as a Casual Mazdoor of the Departmental Canteen in 1986 and was granted temporary status w.e.f. 01-10-1989 and appointed as a regular Mazdoor w.e.f. 01-04-1996 - DOPT directed that all employees working in non-statutory departmental canteens are to be treated as regular Government servants w.e.f. 01-10-1991 - Whether applicant could be declared as government servant and entitled to pensionary benefits? - Held, orders of the Government of India treated employees of Departmental/Cooperative Canteens /Tiffin rooms located in Central Government Offices as regular Government servants w.e.f. 01-10-1991, this establishes a claim for the applicant to be brought under the canteen employees scheme w.e.f. 01-10-1991 - He is entitled to be treated as a regular Government servant of Departmental Canteen and since applicant was conferred with temporary status w.e.f. 01-10-1989 and therefore half of the service of the applicant prior to 01-10-1991 can also be counted for pensionary benefits - Application allowed.
Rama Chaudhary vs State of Bihar [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Apr 2009]
Criminal - IPC, 1860, ss. 364, 34 - Cr.P.C, 1973, ss. 173(2), 173(8) - Whether summoning the witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet can be allowed? - Held, even after submission of police report under 173(2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to further investigation under s. 173(8) but not 'fresh investigation' or 'reinvestigation' - Carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the Police - Trial Court is fully justified to summon witnesses examined in the course of further investigation - Appeal dismissed.
Source : -