Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1434; JT1997(3)SC726; (1997)ILLJ1190SC; 1997(3)SCALE180; (1997)3SCC636; [1997]2SCR591
Leave granted.We have heard counsel on both sides.The appellant while working as compositor in the Government of India Printing Press, was charged for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 409 of IPC. Pending trial, he was kept under suspension and was paid subsistence allowance. After his acquittal, the appellant was reinstated but the respondents did not grant the consequential benefits to him. Consequently, the appellant approached the Administrative Tribunal, The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27th April, 1995 in OA No. 40/92, dismissed the application. Thus, this appeal by special leave.Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that under Rule 72(3) of the Maharashtra civil services (Joining Time, foreign Services, and Payment during Suspension, dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1991 (for short, the 'Rules') the Rules cannot be applied to the appellant nor would the respondents be justified in treating the period of suspension of appellant, as the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(4)SC116; (1997)ILLJ1165SC; RLW1997(1)SC164; (1997)9SCC239; [1997]2SCR582
ORDER1.This is an astonishing and more shocking case. The petitioner who was, admittedly, to retire on May 31, 1991 remained in office till May 31, 1994 as if he was not to retire from service, enjoying all the benefits of service.2. This special leave petition raised from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, made on November 26, 1996 in OA No. 652/1995. The petitioner had joined the service in Tele Communications Department. Admittedly, his date of birth is May 13, 1933. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was to retire on May 31, 1994. Instead he remained in service till May 31, 1994. When action was taken to recover the amounts paid to him for the period beyond the date he was to retire viz., May 31, 1991 and to which he was not entitled, he filed OA in the Tribunal and the same has been dismissed. Thus this special leave petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has worked during the period, he is entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC715; 1997(3)SCALE78; (1997)4SCC252; [1997]2SCR585
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, made on January 15, 1997 in LPA No. 255/96. The first respondent had evolved the LTC Rules for its executive cadre employees and the same were last revised on May 15,1989. Thereunder Clause 1(b)(ii) postulates that:Once in a block of 4 calender years commencing from the 1st January, 1976 the executive cadre employees will be entitled to the concession under these rules for journeys to any place in India. This concession will, however, be in lieu of LTC entitlement of that year to travel to home town and back. This facility of availing LTC for journeys to any place in India once in 4 years will also be available to employees whose home towns are either the same or very close to their places of posting and so are not entitled to LTC for home town.The employees and/or members of the family may avail of LTC, facilities for travel to the same place or to different places of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1594; JT1999(4)SC633; (1997)11SCC67
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The post which is the subject-matter of this appeal is that of Livestock Supervisor. It is to be filled in either by direct recruitment or by promotion. We are here concerned with two claimants for promotion from the rival feeder cadres, namely, Stockman and Field Assistant. The Departmental Promotion Committee graded the appellant, the 2nd respondent and a third candidate equally, as being very good, but, having regard to the duties assigned to the post of Livestock Supervisor and the nature and length of his service in that line, preferred to recommend the appellant, who was the Stockman, for the post of Livestock Supervisor. The 2nd respondent, who was the Field Assistant, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld his claim and directed the D.P.C. to consider the matter over again. The D.P.C. did so, and again recommended the name of the appellant. The 2nd respondent went again to the Tribunal; the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3620; 1997(91)ELT3(SC); JT1997(3)SC307; 1997(2)SCALE407; (1997)4SCC140; [1997]2SCR561
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. These six appeals are preferred by the common appellant, M/s. Gujarat State Fertilisers Company, against the central excise authorities, being aggrieved by common judgment and order dated 19.4.1991 rendered by the Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT' for short). The appellant contends that it is entitled to concessional rate of excise duty on raw naphtha consumed by it at its factory at Vadodara for manufacturing ammonia which was captively consumed for manufacturing molten urea. That claim for concessional rate of duty is based on Notification No. 75 of 1984 dated 1.3.1984, as amended from time to time, issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 promulgated under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant also claimed total exemption from excise duty on the manufactured ammonia utilised by it for production of molten urea by captively consuming th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC723; 1997(3)SCALE176; (1997)3SCC639; [1997]2SCR594
ORDER1. These special leave petitions arise from the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, made on October 31, 1996 in Application Nos. 1374 and 1375/96.2. The admitted position is that the petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Attainders in the Department of Horticulture under the Karnataka Horticulture (Department) Recruitment Rules, 1974. Under the hierarchy of the posts, there are Gardeners, Peons, Zamadars including Attainders, Head Gardner's and Field Assistants in the said Department and various scales of pay have been prescribed in the above Rules. The Rules prescribe 25% quota for recruitment by promotion to the posts of Field Assistants from the cadre of Head Gardner's, Gardeners, Masteries and col. 3 thereof prescribes the minimum qualification for promotion to the same category. The petitioners had filed the OA claiming promotion to the posts of Field Assistant treating that Laboratory Attainders are equivalent to Head Gardner's and, therefore, they are eligibl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1908; 1997(2)CTC31; JT1997(3)SC717; (1999)ILLJ947SC; 1997(3)SCALE86; (1997)3SCC657; [1997]2SCR588
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. 2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on April 19, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 10200/90. 3. The admitted position is that the respondent, while working as Cashier-cum-Clerk in the appellant-Bank, was charged with the allegation that he had fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs. 28,500 on different dates from the saving accounts of different account-holders by forging the bank records and signatures of the saving bank account-holders. A charge sheet was served upon him to which the respondent gave his reply. An enquiry was conducted in which he did not participate. Proceedings were conducted ex-parte. Then, the enquiry officer, after detailed examination of the evidence adduced, recorded findings that the respondent was guilty of misconduct for forgery of the signatures and for fraudulent withdrawal of the amounts. Accordingly, he submitted his report. The d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1287; JT1997(3)SC373; 1997(2)SCALE446; (1997)4SCC505; [1997]2SCR579; 1997(1)LC602(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. A building in the town of Banaras was statedly in possession of a dancing girl; it having been owned by respondent No. 1 herein. That dancer is stated to have associated with her two musicians to carry on her vocation. That duo is respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. All the three respondents are represented by the same learned Counsel. At a point of time, by an executive drive, all the dancing girls were statedly driven out of the area where the building in dispute stood located. The building, according to the claim of the landlord, was not available for regulation of letting. The authorities concerned took a contrary view and considered that the building was lettable. An order under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) was passed in favour of the appellant herein - Mohd. Nazir - on 17.5.1972 in respect of the above-mentioned building. According to him, he was put in possession of the property in pursuance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1868; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)687; 1997CriLJ1922; 1997(1)Crimes256(SC); JT1997(3)SC122; 1997(2)SCALE400; (1997)3SCC766; [1997]2SCR547
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave raises an interesting question about the scope of para 633-A of the Punjab Jail Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Manual) relating to cancellation of remission earned by a prisoner. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are : While undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Sections 302/149 and 148 I.P.C. as imposed by the learned Sessions judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment and order dated 10.6.1980, the respondent is alleged to have made a plan in conspiracy with some other prisoners, to escape from the jail on 16.9.1984. In execution of the said plan, a jail warden, was allegedly assaulted by the respondent on 16.9.1984. A First Information Report was lodged and the respondent was sent up for trial for various offences under the Indian Penal Code to the Session Court. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and various terms of imprisonment for offences under Section 307/149 I.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3663; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)733; 1997CriLJ2493; JT1997(3)SC226; 1997(2)SCALE391; (1997)10SCC197; [1997]2SCR529
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal under Section 379 Cr.PC is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1989 whereby it set aside the acquittal of the two appellants of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. recorded in their favour by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1987 and convicted and sentenced them thereunder.2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is as under :(a) The appellants are the sons of the elder sister of Hanamapa Sabappa Halagal (the deceased) of village Araker in Dilgi Taluka of the district of Bijapur. After the death of his first wife, the deceased married Erawwa, the elder sister of the two appellants, i.e. his own sister's daughter, the deceased and Erawwa however did not have a happy conjugal life and, within a month of their marriage, he deserted her and started living with Lakshmawwa (P.W. 1), a widow. The two appellants however were insisting upon the deceased to ...
Tag this Judgment!