L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Director General Esic & Anr vs Puroshottam Malani

3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent herein was working in the appellant organization as Manager. Since he wanted to go on voluntary retirement, he tendered a three months' notice dated 31.12.1999 for voluntary retirement to retire him with effect from 31.3.2000. The said notice of the respondent for relieving him on voluntary retirement was accepted by the appellant corporation on 10.2.2000. However, on 22.3.2000, i.e., 10 days prior to the date of relieving him, the respondent sought to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement whereby the respondent had sought voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.2000. The request for withdrawal of the notice for voluntary retirement was rejected by the appellant corporation on 17.4.2000. Aggrieved against the said order of rejection dated 17.4.2000, the respondent 2 herein approached the CAT, Jabalpur, Circuit Bench, Indore. The CAT vide its order dated 13.01.2004 quashed and set aside the order dated 17.4.2000 of the appellant herein and directed the appellant to treat the applicant-respondent to have continuously worked till the date of actual superannuation and granted him all arrears of salary and other emoluments including increments and to get his pensionary benefits refixed accordingly. Aggrieved against the said order of the CAT, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order and the order of the Tribunal was affirmed. Hence the present appeal by special leave.

11. Therefore, in the facts of the present case where the respondent has not provided for reason for withdrawal of his notice for voluntary retirement and secondly that the respondent had already received all the pensionary benefits including leave encashment, gratuity, commutation etc. and woke up to file an application before the Tribunal as late as November, 2000, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court and that of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Indore dated 13.1.2004.

The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Sushil Kumar Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors

The appellant was appointed on 12.2.1993 on account of the fact that his father died during election operation and he approached the Chief Minister and it was ordered by the said Chief Minister that since his father was died while discharging his duty during election, therefore, the incumbent may be considered for appointment. Accordingly, appellant was appointed on mercy petition as Constable in Police Department and the appointment continued up to 2001. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the appellant that there was no Rule for compassionate appointment at the relevant time. Therefore, his services were terminated by the order dated 24.1.2003 on the ground that as per the Rule 661 of Bihar Police Manual a Selection committee is required to be constituted for selection of candidate for the post of Constable and that his selection was not done in accordance with the Manual, therefore, his services were terminated.

Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the High Court and was unsuccessful. His writ petition was dismissed on 16.8.2005 by the learned single Judge. Therefore, he preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench which was dismissed by the order dated 24/1/07. Hence he approached this court by present appeal.

The appellant was appointed on 12.2.1993 on account of the fact that his father died during election operation and he approached the Chief Minister and it was ordered by the said Chief Minister that since his father was died while discharging his duty during election, therefore, the incumbent may be considered for appointment. Accordingly, appellant was appointed on mercy petition as Constable in Police Department and the appointment continued up to 2001. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the appellant that there was no Rule for compassionate appointment at the relevant time. Therefore, his services were terminated by the order dated 24.1.2003 on the ground that as per the Rule 661 of Bihar Police Manual a Selection committee is required to be constituted for selection of candidate for the post of Constable and that his selection was not done in accordance with the Manual, therefore, his services were terminated.

Consequently, we set aside the order of the termination dated 24.1.2003 and the order of the learned single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. NO order as to costs.

Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the High Court and was unsuccessful. His writ petition was dismissed on 16.8.2005 by the learned single Judge. Therefore, he preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench which was dismissed by the order dated 24/1/07. Hence he approached this court by present appeal.

Consequently, we set aside the order of the termination dated 24.1.2003 and the order of the learned single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench.

Let the appellant be reinstated, but he will not be entitled to any back wages.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

JULY 24, 2008.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gulab Nabi & Anr

4. A Claim Petition was filed under Section 4 of the Act against owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant- National Insurance Co. The Commissioner directed payment of Rs.2,68,800/- to respondent No.1 along with interest @12%. In terms of Section 20 of the Act, the appellant- National Insurance Company was directed for payment to respondent No.1. The award made by the Commissioner was questioned before the High Court in an appeal which came to be dismissed summarily in the following manner: 2

10. The manner in which the appeal has been dismissed is not the proper course while dealing with the appeal when it raised substantial question of law.

11. Above being the position, we set aside the order of the High Court. The matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration 5 in accordance with law. The parties are directed to place fresh evidence and materials before the High Court for the purpose of adjudication for disposing of First Appeal No. 836 of 2006.

12. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Nagesh Singh & Anr vs B.D. Virdi & Ors

We may at outset mention that we are not concerned with the facts relating to the CWP No.223 of 2001. We have been informed that the matter is pending before the Tribunal pertaining to this subject. Therefore, we are not going into the facts pertaining to CWP No.223/2001.

Appointments to the Service made otherwise than by promotion will be subject to orders regarding special representation in the Services for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs from time to time." -6-

Appointment to the service made otherwise than by promotion will be subject to orders regarding special representation in the Service for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes issued by the Government from time to time." This rule was also given retrospective operation from 27th November, 1972.

15.Respectfully following the law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to and quoted above, we are of the view that the retrospective operation of the amended Rule 13 cannot be sustained. We are satisfied that the retrospective amendment of Rule 13 of the Rules takes away the vested rights of Mohanty and other general category candidates senior to Respondents 2 to 9. We, therefore, declare amended Rule 13 to the extent it has been made operative retrospectively to be unreasonable, arbitrary and, as such, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We strike down the retrospective operation of the rule. In the view we have taken on the point it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised by Mohanty."

Therefore, on the basis of the reasoning given by the Hon'ble Sawant, J. in Union of India vs. V. Mohanty's, we read down the Rule 13 that it cannot be given retrospectivity. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and restore the order of the Tribunal passed in OA No.1206/93 and direct -10- that the case of both these appellants before us shall be considered by the respondents from the date when their juniors were promoted to the post of Deputy Director, Grade III. However, we direct that whatever monetary benefits which have been accrued to these respondents shall not be deprived to them.

We have been informed that both these appellants have already been granted retrospective promotion and all the benefits flowing therefrom.

The appeals are allowed and the order of the Delhi High Court is set aside. All the applications filed by Appellant No.3 - in person - are permitted to be withdrawn.

No order as to costs.
Ashok vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr

2. The appellant sustained fractures of the right humerus in a motor accident. It required hospitalization, surgery and insertion of a rod. There was a resultant limited flexion disability at elbow and shoulder. The Tribunal awarded Rs.43,470/- as compensation (with interest at 6% P.A.) made up of Rs.15,000/- towards pain & agony, Rs.12,870/- for medical expenses, Rs.1600/- for loss of income during the period of treatment, Rs.2000/- for future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities and earning capacity and Rs.2,000/- for special diet & nourishment.

7. Appeal is allowed in part. The increased compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit, shall be deposited by the respondents within two months.
Raja Shri Shivrai Pratishthan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

appellants established old age homes at Pune and Kolhapur respectively. In 1995, the State Government framed rules for providing grant-in-aid to recognized Vruddhashrams. The same were circulated vide Resolution dated 17th November, 1995. The Vruddhashrams established by the appellants were among the institutions selected for grant-in-aid. After six years, the State Government reviewed its decision and issued Resolution dated 3rd December, 2001 for conducting Vruddhashrams through private voluntary institutions on permanent non-grant-aid basis. Para 2 of the resolution envisaged the issue of an advertisement by Director, Social Welfare for inviting proposals for conducting Vruddhashrams on non-grant-aid basis with a stipulation that all recognized Vruddhashrams will be entitled to apply and the institutions whose work was to be found satisfactory and who agreed to be abide by the terms and conditions enumerated in the government resolution will be given preference.

In the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.3091 of 2002, Shri N.N. Bhadikar, Deputy Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department, Government of Maharashtra, stated that at the time of inspection of Vruddhashrams by the Director of Social Welfare on 21.11.2000, it was revealed that a number of Vruddhashrams were not running as per the norms laid down by the Government and in the light of his report, it was decided to implement the Scheme through non- government organizations on permanent non-grant-aid basis. However, he did not controvert the assertion made in the writ petition that the Vruddhashram established by the appellant, Raja Shri Shivraya Pratishthan, Pune was being conducted satisfactorily and that there was no deficiency which could justify denial of the benefit of para 2 of resolution dated 3rd December, 2001. In the writ petition filed by appellant, Siddhai Mahila Mandal, Kolhapur, neither any counter affidavit was filed nor any material was placed before the High Court to show that there was any deficiency in the running of Vruddhashrams.

By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions by observing that the allotment of Vruddhashrams on grant-in-aid basis did not create any vested right in favour of the appellants and that the appellants cannot complain against the revised policy decision or claim that they should have been heard before rejection of their applications.

Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter to the State Government for re-considering the matter afresh in ....6/-

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petitions filed by the appellants are allowed and the State of Maharashtra is directed to include the names of the appellants in the list of institutions selected by Government order dated 20th April, 2002, by making amendment therein. This order must be carried out within one month from today.
Union Of India vs Pushpa Rani & Ors

7. Motormen on EMU Trains 50% on Western Railway and 40% on (Rs.550-700) Central, Northern, Eastern, Southern and S.E. Railways to be upgraded as Driver `A' Spl. in scale Rs.550-750.

(b) The Supervisors (other than P.Way) who do not get promoted to grade Rs.5000-8000 shall continue to hold the post in the existing grade Rs.4500-7000 + Rs.100 SA 29 as personal to them. To this extent, the posts upgraded to grade Rs.5000-8000 will be operated in the lower grade Rs.4500-7000 + Rs.100 SA till the existing incumbents vacate the same by way of promotion, retirement etc. On vacation of the posts, the same shall automatically be operated in grade Rs.5000-8000. 13.3 Specific provisions for Supervisor (P.Way) The remaining posts of Supervisors (P.Way), erstwhile PWMs which are not to be upgraded and shall continue to be operated in the existing scale of pay, should be redesignated as `Track Supervisor'.

13.4 While the existing incumbents of the post of Supervisor (P.Way) redisignated as `Track Supervisor' shall continue to draw the scale of pay Rs.4500-7000 + Rs.100 SA as personal to them, the future incumbents to the post of `Track Supervisor' will be in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 without the Special Allowance of Rs.100/-.

19. Re-organization of Zonal Railways/Divisions: Due to re-organization of Zonal Railways/Divisions cadres are in a fluid situation. It may, therefore, take some time for the cadres in the headquarter offices of New Zones and Divisions to stabilize. In the circumstances, new Zonal Railways are required to ensure that the staff transferred to headquarter offices of new Zonal Railways/new Divisions are not extended the double benefit of restructuring. In case an employee has been given the benefit of restructuring on the old (parent) railway in terms of these orders, he will not be allowed the benefit of restructuring again on the headquarter offices of new 32 Zonal Railways/new Divisions. In other words, no railway servant will be considered for double promotion as a result of this restructuring."

12. In view of the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench, there cannot be any doubt that the Railway Board and General Managers are empowered 38 to frame rules for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees.

30. We may now deal with an ancillary question whether the policy of reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can be applied in the matter of promotion.

38. The constitutionality of the above reproduced clause has been upheld in M. Nagaraj's case.

Civil Appeal No._____@ S.L.P. (C) No.5045 OF 2007 73

54. Leave granted.

57. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. As a consequence, the original applications filed by the respondents in all the cases shall stand dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs.

(B.N. Agrawal) .........................J. (G.S. Singhvi) New Delhi July 29, 2008
Anil Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors

5. Against that adverse entry he had earlier filed a representation which was rejected by the Chief Commissioner by order dated 14.7.2003. Against the order of the Chief Commissioner, the appellant made further representation to the Central Government, which was rejected by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, which has been conveyed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India by his letter dated 30.9.2004.

5. Before the Tribunal the appellant submitted that the adverse entry had been made malafide. This fact had been considered by the Tribunal in para 9 of its order and the Tribunal observed that the appellant had not brought to its notice any extraneous factor or reason as to why the concerned authority should have acted in a malafide manner. Moreover, the appellant's representation against that adverse entry was rejected by the Chief Commissioner, and his further representation to the Central Government was also rejected. Hence the Tribunal rejected the OA of the appellant.

12. For the reasons given above, we find no merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed. No costs.

30th July, 2008
Jaywant Bhaguji Gadekar vs Balaleshwar Shikshan Mandal & Ors

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Balaleshwar Shikshan Mandal against a clear and permanent vacancy on probation. Certain complaints were received against the appellant from the students regarding his misbehaviour. In the wake of these complaints, the appellant tendered conditional resignation on 16th August, 1998. The letter of resignation was sent to the Chairman of the Institution. It was alleged that since the allegations have been levelled against him and he want to be absolved of the allegations, he tender his resignation from the post and after an inquiry is held and he is exonerated, he may be reinstated. The letter of resignation dated 16th August, 1998 reads as under :-

...6/-

The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The order dated 10th June, 2003 passed by the High Court is set aside and the case is remitted back to the High Court to decide the matter in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.
Bhimasha vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr

The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.13,100/- per acre for dry land and Rs.1,000/- for phot kharab land. On a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Trial Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.36,200/- per acre. On appeal, the High Court referred to the yield notification and price list issued by the competent authority as also the average price of both the crops in relation to the relevant year and concluded that market price of the land comes to Rs.66,550/- per acre. However, the High Court refused to award compensation at the said rate on the premise that the appellant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.58,500/- per acre.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is modified and the market value of the land fixed by the High Court is enhanced to Rs.66,550/- per acre. This order, however, will be subject to the payment of further amount of court fee to be assessed by the Registry of the High Court. After assessment, the Registry shall intimate the deficit amount of court fee to be payable by the appellant to his counsel, which shall be paid within two months from the date intimation is received by the counsel from the High Court.

No costs.
Subodh S. Salaskar vs Jayprakash M. Shah & Anr

Admittedly, the cheques were presented before the bank on 10.01.2001. They were returned to the respondent No. 1 by the bank alleging that no such account, in the name of the appellant was in operation. A legal notice dated 17.01.2001 was sent by speed post asking the appellant to 3 pay the said amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- failing which legal action including criminal action would be taken against him.

7. Appellant filed an application for discharge on 16.12.2003 inter alia on the premise that the said complaint petition was barred by limitation. It was dismissed by an order dated 14.11.2006. The revision application filed by the appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was also dismissed. A criminal writ petition filed by the appellant marked as Criminal Writ Petition No. 330 of 2007 before the High Court of Bombay has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment holding:

15. Indisputably, therefore, unless the conditions precedent for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Act are satisfied, the court will have no jurisdiction to pass an order in that behalf.

[Emphasis supplied]

23. The complaint petition admittedly was filed on 20.04.2001. The notice having been sent on 17.01.2001, if the presumption of service of notice within a reasonable time is raised, it should be deemed to have been served at best within a period of thirty days from the date of issuance thereof, i.e., 16.02.2001. The accused was required to make payment in terms of the said notice within fifteen days thereafter, i.e., on or about 2.03.2001. The complaint petition, therefore, should have been filed by 2.04.2001.

26. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the courts below committed a manifest error in applying the proviso to the fact of the instant case. If the complaint petition was barred by limitation, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 138 of the Act. The direction to issue summons on the appellant, therefore, being illegal and without jurisdiction was a nullity.

30. The court had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the complaint petition at a later stage. Therefore, the High court was not correct in taking the aforementioned view in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

31. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.

August 01, 2008
Ram Babu Tiwari vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

3. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is that on 27.1.1996 the deceased Rajendra Singh and Balaram along with others were travelling by a truck bearing registration No.MP-06/E/0129 with their buffalos on 27.1.1996 from Agra to Vidisha. It met with an accident having been hit by a tractor trolly bearing registration No.MP

-6/J/7506. Rajendra Singh died on the spot whereas Balaram was seriously injured in the said accident. He was admitted in a hospital at Gwalior where he succumbed to his injuries.

5. Having been served with a notice in the proceedings claiming compensation by the dependents of the said deceased in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the respondent, in his written statement, inter alia, raised a contention that the driver of the tractor, the 3 respondent No.6, did not have any valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle on the said date of accident.

7. By reason of an award dated 6.10.1999, the learned Tribunal held that the driver Ram Prakash was having valid licence only for the period 11.2.1990 and 10.2.1993 and again from 7.2.1996 to 7.2.1999.

Indisputably, therefore, the driver Ram Prakash did not hold any licence during the period 11.2.1993 to 6.2.1996.

20. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

August 1, 2008
T.Kaliamuthi And Anr vs Five Gori Thaikal Wakf And Ors

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are stated here.

34. In view of the above discussions, we are, therefore, of the view that Section 107 cannot revive a barred claim or extinguished rights.

35. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and decree of the High Court passed in the aforesaid second appeals are set aside and the suits filed by the respondents are 54 dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the second appeals, we do no find any reason to interfere with the order passed in CMP Nos.3200 and 3201 of 2000 and accordingly the Civil Misc. Petitions are also dismissed.

36. The appeals are thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.