evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BAHADURGARH A v.

KRISHNAN BEHAR! AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 19, 1996

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] B

Se1vice Law :

Employee of Municipal Corporation dismissed from service f of misappropriation of cash and falsifying account~The employee was also prosecuted and convicted-In departmental appeal Director of Local Bodies reduced the punishment to stoppage off our increment~Also directed that c

the pe1iod during which the employee was out of service be treated as extra-ordinary leave-Appeals to Commissioner and High Court dismissed-On appeal held, in cases involving com.tption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal--Any sympathy shown in such a case is D totally unwmmnted and opposed to public interest.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.94 of the Punjab & E Haryana High Court in C.W.A. No. 4769 of 1994.

AP. Medh for the Appellants.

Respondent-in-person and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents.

F The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

The respondent was a clerk in the Municipality. He was alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1548.78p by falsifying the accounts. He G was prosecuted in a criminal case and convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced. On appeal, the conviction was altered from Section 409 to Section 468 of the Indian penal Code. Section 468 reads :

"Whoever commits forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished with H 827

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1996] 2 S.C.R.

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine."

In view of the said punishment, the Municipal Committee dismissed the respondent. The respondent filed an appeal before the Director of Local Bodies who, while upholding the correctness of the action, reduced B the punishment to stoppage of four increments and has also directed that the period during which the respondent was out of service should be treated as extra-ordinary leave. An appel filed by the Municipal Committee to the Commissioner was dismissed as incompetent. A writ petition filed by the Municipal Committee was also dismissed in limine by the High C Court.

It is obvious that the respondent has been convicted of a serious crime and it is a clear case attracting under proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases invoMng corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any D sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. The Director had interferred with the punishment under a total mis-apprehension of the relevant factors to be borne in mind in such a case.

E Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Judgments of the High Court, Commissioner and the Director are set aside and the order of the Municipal Cotnmittee dismissing the respondent is restored.

No costs.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
MUNICIPAL COMMITIEE, ABOHAR v.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, E.S.I. CORPN. AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 2, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]

Labour laws :

Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 :

S.45-A-Employees of Municipal Corporati01t-Working in water works C department-Provided with health schem~Eligible to medical facilities and reimbursement of amounts spent-Therefore coverage of the employees under the Act is per se illegal.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3508 of D 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.93 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 589 of 1993.

P.N. Puri for the Appellant.

V.K. Mehta for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

F This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 5.10.1993 in F.A.O. No. 589/93 dismissing the appeal as usual in limine. The admitted facts are that the appellant- Municipal Committee has been running water works known as Patel Water Works. The employees working in the Water Department are now sought to be covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, G 1948 (for short 'the Act'). When notice was issued to the appellant, they objected to the coverage of employees under the Act. Therefore, an order has been passed under Section 45-A of the Act. Challenging thereto, an appeal was filed under Section _75 of the Act. The insurance Court has confirmed that the employees are covered under the Act. Accordingly, H 83

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1996) 2S; C.R. I

A when challenged, the high Court in the first appeal dismissed the same.

- B

Thus this appeal by special leave.

The question is whether the employees of the Municipal Corporation are also covered under the Act? The employees of the Corporation are governed by the statutory rules made under the Act and in some cases in other States the benefits of the Govt. scales of pay etc. have been extended.

However, the fact remains that they are provided with the health scheme and also eligible to medical facilities and reimbursement of the amounts spent by the 1 concerned employees. Under these circumstances, the coverage of e_mployees under the Act per se illegal.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. /

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
SRI-LA-SRI SIVAPRAKASA PANDARA SANNADHI AVARGAL A v.

SMT. T. PARVATHI AMMAL AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 20, 1996

[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Tamil Nadu Minor lnam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963:

Civil Cowt's jurisdiction to adjudicate title to the parties-Whether C baned by viltue of the provisions of the Act-Held No.

R. Manickanaicker v. E. Elumalainaicker, [1995] 4 SCC 156, relied on.

Vatticherukwu Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deeshithulu D and Ors., [1991) Supp. 2 SCC 228, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5141 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.87 of the Madras High E Court in S.A. No. 888 of 1979.

S. Balakrishnan and S. Prasad for the Appellant.

S. Sivasubramaniam, A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balalji, for the Respopdents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : F

The only question for decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit which was filed by the respondents. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The First appellate Court set aside the decree G taking the view that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred. In the second appeal filed by the present respondents, the High Court has restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court taking the view that the Civil

urt's jurisdiction was not barred.

The plea of exclusion of the Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1996] 2 S.C.R.

A the title of the parties in the present case is based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,

1963. This Court in a recent decision in R. Manickanaicker v.

Elwnalianaicke1; [1995] 4 SCC 156, has clearly held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate title to the parties, is not barred by virtue of the

B provisions of the said Act. This is a direct decision of this Court on the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned in the present case.

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in Vattaicherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deeshithulu and Ors., [1991] Supp. 2 SCC 228. It is sufficient to observe that this decision relates to the provisions under a different Act of Andhra Pradesh.

C Moreover in R. Manickanaicker, this decision relating to the provisions in the Andhra Pradesh Act was considered and distinguished. In view of the Direct decision of this Court in R. Manickanaicke1; there is no merit in this. appeal. The appeal and the contempt petition are dismissed. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal and petition dismissed.
•\ I

' +

MOHSIN UNISSA A

TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

MARCH 29, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G. B. PATTANAIK, JJ.J B

Se1vice Law :

Tantil Nadu Public Se1vice Conunission:--Finance DepartJnent-Junior Assistant-Appointment-Regula1isation-Tamil language test-Employee passed the test while she was working tempormily-Held the candidate having C passed Tamil language test while wmking temporarily, her se1vices cannot be tenninated for failure to pass the test after regular appointment-The Commission would regulmise her sc1vice giving her past benefits of temporary seJvice w. e.f 1975-76-Scnimity would be detennined w.e.f the date of regular appointment in August, 1990.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.89 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1298 of 1988.

R. Mohan, R.A. Perumal and R. Nedumaran for the Appellants.

K. Venkataramani, A. Mariarputham and Ashok Mathur for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

Appellant was temporarily appointed in the Tamil Nadu Public G Service Commi.'5ion itself in the year 1975-76, for regular recruitment, she was selected and appointed in the Finance Department as a Junior Assistant in August 1990. For regularisation of her service passing the Tamil language test was a pre-condition. Initially, she had appeared in the year

1977. While she was temporarily working she had passed the exam. She H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1996] 3 S.C.R.

A was asked to pass the same examination again after her regular appointment. It would appear that she had requested a companion who was sining by her side to keep an eye on her answer book and also it was taken that she committed malpractice in copying the paper. On that ground the paper written by her in the year 1977 was also cancelled along with the examina-

B tion in which she is imputed to have committed malpractice. When she challenged the order, the High Court held that since the examination passed by her in 1977 was valid in law, the cancellation thereof on the ground of her committing malpractice in the second examination is not valid in law. That order has become final.

C Under these circumstances, the only question is : whether the appellanl's service could be terminated for her failure to pass the examination. No doubt, she did not pass the examination after her regular appointment but she has passed the examination when she was temporarily in service and that order having been allowed to become final, it is no longer open to the respondent to terminate her services for failure to pass the D examination. The respondent is directed to regularise her service giving her past benefits of temporary service with effect from 1975-76 for purpose by perusal. Hol'(evcr seniority would be determined, she being a direct recruit, w.e.f. the date of her appointment in August 1990.

E The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.
SATYA NARAIN PAREEK

STATE OF RA.IASTHAN AND ANR.

MARCH 29, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .J.J.)

Se1vice Law :

Lien of pemwnent employee in parent depa1tment-Tec/mical Educa- C lion Depmtmenr of State Govemment of Rajasthan-Pemwnent Lower Division Clerk-Transfer on deputation to a tenure post in Transpmt Depmtment-Order of repafliation to parent dep01tment challenged on the ground that lien in parent dep01tment had been suspended-Held, appellant being a pennanent enzployee in Technical Education Deparlnzent, diuing his deputation in TranJpo1t Departnzent his lien shall always re1nain in parent depan- D me11t-011 repat1iatio11 employee goes to parent depmtment and is entitled to

clabns in his ow!l right in that depa1t111ent.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6964 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order date 13.5.94 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 215 of 1990.

K.M. Reddy, A.D.N. Rao, T.C. Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma for the Appellants.

Aruneshwar Gupta and Manoj K. Das for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Technical Education Department. He was transferred on deputation to the Transport Department. In the impugned order he was repatriated to the Technical Education Department. Calling that action in question, the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 2058/89. The learned single Judge H of the High Court by order dated 16.7.1990 dismissed the same. On appeal,

:~ _ _.,

~-- ~-

S.N. PAREEKv. STATE 1055

in Civil Special Appeal No. 215/90, it was confirmed by the Division Bench A by order dated May 13,1994. Thus this appeal hy special leave.

The only controversy raised by Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the lemned senior counsel for the appellant is that in vie\V or the letter a<ldrcssc<l by the Technical Education Department -hat his lien was suspended and he could not be taken back into the service, the appellant has lost his lien in B the parent deparln1cnt. Therefore, he must be <leeme<l to have pcrm<:tnently absorhed in Transport Departtnent. We find no force in the contention.

In the counter-affidavit liled by the State, it is stated that "Since the petitioner was, admittedly, temporarily transferred to a tenure post, his lien in parent department cannot be suspended under 1951 Rules. The claim C of the petitioner that his lien exist in Transport department is without any basis and wholly misconceived". Jn view of the above specific stand taken by the State and it is also consistent with the rules that since the appellant being a permanent employee in Technical Education Department, during his deputation in the Transport Department his lien shall always remain in D the parent department. On his repatriation, he goes back to his parent department, namely, Technical Education Department and he is entitled to his claims in his own right in that department.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal dismissed.
UNJON OF INDIA, THROUGH CHJEF OF REVENUE, A

CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD., RANCHI

JANK! MAHTO AND ORS.

APRIL 2, 1996

jK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .JJ.]

Inte!im Stay-High Cowt-Appea/ against award-Held, High Cowt should have granted inteiim stay of execution of the award-There shall be stay pending appeal.

c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6980-7017 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.93 of the Bihar High Court in Misc. A. Nos. 495, 482, 470-71, 475, 493, 472, 479, 490, 485, 476, ~~~~m,~~~~~~i.m~~D 480, 477, 491, 497, 502, 498, 505, 499, 503, 500 and 501 of 1993.

Sanjay Khaitan for 0.P. Khaitan & Co. for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

Notice issued is sufficient service in respect of respondent Nos. 1, 6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18, 20-24, 28, 31, 34, 36-39, 41-45, 48-98, 100-109, 111 and-113. Notices sent with Acknowledgments Due have not been received back. They must be deemed to have been served. Notice on respondent Nos. 12, 13, 17, 33 and 47 have been received back without any date.

Thercfurl:, notice LHl then1 n1ust be tjccn1c<l lo have been served.

The only question is : whether the High Court was justified in granting the interim directions as prayed for. Jn view of the circun1stance of the case, we think that the High Courl would have granted interim stay of the execution of the award which is the subject matter of the appeals in the High Court.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be stay pending appeal, as prayed for. The High Court is requested lo dis pose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

Appeals allowed. H 1091
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI A v.

LOUIS SHOPPE AND ANR.

MARCH 12, 1996

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S. SAGHIR AHM..\D, JJ.] B

Excise-Notificatio11 No. 76 of 1986 dated 10.2.1986-'Handicrafts'- What are-Test for determination of handicrafts laid dowit-'Wooden fumiture'-<:an be characterised as handicrafts only if satisfies the requirements laid dow11--View taken ill order under appeal held not in accordance C with test laid dow11 /Jy Supreme Court-Direction to !'PP/y prospectively the principles laid down i11 all pe11ding matters.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9217-18 of 1995.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.94 of the Central Excise Customs and Gold (Control} Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in F.O.No. 451-52 of 1994-D.

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, V.K Verma, M. Gauri Shankar Murthy for the Appellant.

Soli J. Sorabjee and Dushyant Dave, Raju Ramachandran, N. Mullik, Manoj Prasad, C.K. Shastri, Kailash Vasdev for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Heard Counsel for both the parties at this stage itself.

The question is whether wooden furniture by itself can be treated as "handicrafts" within the meaning of Notification No. 76 of 1986 dated February 10,1986 ? It must be said straightaway that furniture as such does

not qualify as handicrafts. It may be characterised as "handicrafts" if the G following tests are satisified :

"(1} It must be predominantly made hy hand. It does not matter if some machinery is also used in the process.

(2) It must be graced with visual appeal in the nature of H ·

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1996] 3 S.C.R.

A ornamentation or in-lay work or some similar work lending it an element of artistic improvement. Such ornamentation must be of a substantial nature and not a mere pretence."

Whenever the above question arises, the authorities shall examine the matter from the above stand-point and pass orders accordingly.

The above principles shall apply to all pending matters and to all matters arising hereinafter. This direction we are making because it appears that the view taken by the Tribunal in the order under appeal - which is clearly not in accordance with the test/principles laid down by us herein C - appears to have been followed by the Tribunal since 1989 at least. The cases concerned herein shall not be re-opened in view of the above principles.

The appeals are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

A copy of this Order may be sent to the Registrar, CEGAT and he D may circulate the same to all the Benches.

T.N.A.

Appeals disposed of.
STATE OF GOA AND ANR.

A v.

SMT. S.A. ABDUL KARIM ETC. ETC.

MARCH 15, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Land Acquisitionontroversy in issue covered by earlier judgment-Disposal in terms of that judgment.

Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 689, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5231 of D 1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.93 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 229 of 1993.

S.K. Mehta for the Appellants.

P.N. Puri for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Conrt was delivered :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

The controversy raised in this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Babua Ram & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 68.9.

Following the judgment, the appeals are allowed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.

T.N.A.

Appeals allowed; 491
MASIPATLA RAGHA VULU

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LAO, PEDDAPALLI

MARCH 15, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4( 1).

Land Acquisition-Acquisition of land for National Thennal Power C Corporation-Compensation by Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 3, 000 per

acrnhancement by Sub-Judge @ Rs. 6,500 per acre-Order passed by Sub-Judge conftnned by High Court-AppeaHn respect of another land acquired for same purpose policy decision of Corporation to withdraw appeals if compensation was Rs. 8,000 or less for per acre--Held land acquired being in contiguous zone compensation for such land dete1111ined @ Rs. 8, 000 D per acre-Landowners also held entitled to solatium and interest at the rates prevailing prior to Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5086 of 1996.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.92 of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court in A. No 2196 of 1989.

D. Prakash Reddy and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the Appellants.

G. Prabhakar and K.C. Dua for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Intervention is allowed.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') acquiring large extent of land for National Thermal Power Corporation, was published on September 22, 1979. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation @ Rs3,000 per acre. On reference, the learned sub-Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,500 H per acre. On appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the 492

MASIPATLARAGHAVULUv. REV. DNNL. OFF1CER 493

order passed by the learned sub-Judge. Thus this appeal by special leave. A

It is not in dispute that when for the same purpose another land was acquired from Maidpalli village to which Lingapur is a hamlet, the Corporation itself had taken decision to withdraw the appeals since the compensation was less than Rs. 8,000. On that basis, the High Court confirmed the market value at Rs. 8,400 per acre in Appeal Nos. 869 and 871 of 1985.

B In view of the fact that the Corporation itself had taken a policy decision to withdraw the appeals where the value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre and less, and since the lands are situated in the hamlet of the main village Maidpalli which are contiguous blocks, the determination of the compensation in respect of these lands also would be C at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The appellant is entitled to solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation at the rates prevailing prior to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed. D