Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3660; JT1997(4)SC322; (1997)ILLJ1205SC; 1997(3)SCALE342; (1997)9SCC36; [1997]2SCR1149
1. This special leave petition has been filed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court, made on November 7, 1996 in Writ Appeal No. 850/1996.2. Admittedly, the petitioner and her husband were charged for an offence under Section 302 and also Section 201 I.P.C. etc. While the husband of the petitioner was convicted, she was acquitted of the offences under Section 301 and also 201, getting her the benefit of doubt. Consequently, she was reinstated into service but back wages were denied, after conducting the enquiry under Kerala Service Rules. Rules 57 of the Rules provides that:An Officer who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours, or is undergoing imprisonment, shall be deemed to be under suspension with effect from the date of commencement of the detention or imprisonment, as the case may be, and shall not be allowed to draw any pay and allowances during such period of suspension other than any subsistence allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)ALT27(SC); JT1997(4)SC300; (1997)IILLJ819SC; 1997(3)SCALE347; (1997)4SCC280; [1997]2SCR1170
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi Court, made on 1.11.1996 in C.W. No. 2086/95.3. The admitted position is that the respondent, while working in the appellant-Corporation, had applied for voluntary retirement, pursuant to the scheme framed by the Corporation to relieve the surplus staff. Initially, by proceedings dated December 20, 1994, the Corporation accepted his resignation subject to the clearance of the outstanding dues. The acceptance was to be given effect from December 31, 1994. By letter dated January 6, 1995, he requested for deduction of a sum of Rs. 37,521.20 out of the outstanding dues. He also requested thus:I once again request you that the formal relieving order relieving me from PFC w.e.f. 31.12.1994 be handed over to me immediately. My service period for which ex-gratia is payable be informed to me and my dues be paid immediately.4. Based thereon, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)BLJR1350; JT1997(5)SC210; (1998)IMLJ3(SC); 1997(3)SCALE379; (1997)5SCC149; [1997]2SCR1176
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, made on October 14, 1996 in CO. No. 2514/95. The present position appears to be that the Premises No. 31. Raja Santosh Road, Alipore, Calcutta is the subject matter of the suit. M/s. Indian Standard Casting Company filed suit No. 86/90 on the file of the IVth Additional District Judge, Alipore. Therein, they had claimed that they were duly inducted by 2nd respondent, M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. as a tenant and, therefore, they have the leasehold right in the premises. Similarly, the appellant filed suit No. 435/90 on the File of the learned IInd Munsif, Alipore. Therein, the appellant claimed that M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. is the tenant and the first respondent has no manner of interest of tenancy right therein as against the appellant. Admittedly, both the suits are pending. In Suit No. 86/90, the trial Court pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(3)CTC369; (1997)10SCC772
A.S. Anand and; S.B. Majmudar, JJ.1. The respondent, Shri B.L. Verma was at the relevant time, serving as Director (Enforcement) with the Government of India. A case was registered against Mr Chandraswamy and others for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 195, 469, 471 and Section 500 IPC. The charge-sheet in the case, known as St. Kitts case, was filed by the CBI before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 26-9-1996. The court took cognizance of the offence against the respondent and others and issued non-bailable warrants. Subsequently, it appears that the court partly modified the order of taking cognizance and deleted Section 500 IPC insofar as the respondent is concerned and issued fresh non-bailable warrants on 5-10-1996.2. The respondent had approached this Court, on refusal of grant of anticipatory bail and on 13-10-1996, this Court, while passing orders in special leave petitions [SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 3278 and 3276 of 1996] filed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC260
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Though the respondent has been served he is not appearing either in person or through counsel. The admitted position is that the respondent is a State cadre officer discharging the duties of an ex-cadre post meant for IPS Officer. Admittedly, he has not been empanelled for the promotion as an IPS Officer but since the post was existing due to exigency of service he has been posted and he performed the duties of the post. Under the Fundamental Rules an officer who performs the duties of the post, is entitled to payment of the salary of the scale of pay attached to the post. Since the respondent, admittedly, performed the duties of the post he is eligible to the payment of the scale of pay attached to the post. No doubt, the Tribunal was not right in granting that payment on the ground of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. But in view of the above rules which stand attracted to the fact-situation the result is not viti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(10)SC664; (1997)5SCC481
Order 1. Leave granted. 2. It was the case of the respondents before the Tribunal that none of the appellants had filed appeals. The Tribunal proceeded to consider whether the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. R. Reddappa1 applied to the appellants, regardless of whether or not they had filed such appeals. It is clear, particularly from paragraph 7 of the judgment in R. Reddappa case1, that the ratio therein would apply to those cases where “the claim petitions have been dismissed because the appeals filed had already been dismissed”. To get the benefit of the judgment in R. Reddappa case1, therefore, the appellants must be such persons whose claim petitions had been dismissed because the appeals filed had already been dismissed and this is a matter which will require an investigation on facts. 3. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The various original applications (OAs Nos. 248 to 254 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2180; JT1997(4)SC189; RLW1997(2)SC185; 1997(3)SCALE340; (1997)9SCC224; [1997]2SCR1128
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted. 3. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.4. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the 'Act) was published on May 7, 1986. The notice under Section 5A was issued and the objections filed on December 17, 1986 were over-ruled after due consideration. Declaration under Section 6 was published on August 25, 1987. After conducting of enquiry, the award came to be made on December 17, 1988. The symbolic possession was taken on the said date. The respondents filed the writ petition on August 19, 1989. The High Court allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated August 31, 1995 in W.P. No. 3354/1988. The question is : whether the procedure followed by the Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated by any error manifest on the face of the record warranting interference by the High Court? Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents, contends that the respondent/tenant has not been given any opportu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(10)SC628; 1997(3)SCALE337; (1997)4SCC424; [1997]2SCR1133
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, passed on May 2, 1996 in L.P.A. No. 815/95.3. The admitted facts are that while the respondent was working temporarily as Superintending Engineer, several proceedings were initiated against him statedly for his own misconduct in the matter of financial transactions etc. It is not necessary to dilate upon all facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), duly constituted by the Government, had gone into the question whether the respondent was fit for promotion from the post of Executive Engineer as Superintending Engineer on regular basis in the proceedings dated 13.9.1995, the DPC found as under:Hence the Departmental Promotion Committee examined in its meeting all the relevant papers/documents made available by the Department. After examination the Committee found the Officer prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(4)SC124; 1997(3)SCALE1; (1997)4SCC606; [1997]2SCR1086
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. These five appeals by special leave arise from the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, made on October 28, 1986 in CM. Writ Petition No. 1244 of 1984 and batch. The primary question is as to the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (U.P. Act No. 29/83) (for short, the 'Act'), made for the management of the Temple of renowned Lord Vishwanath, otherwise known as Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi. By and large, every Hindu believes that without a visit to Kashi for bath in the river Ganges and prayer offered to Lord Shiva, life is incomplete and meaningless and every endeavour is made to visit Kashi at least once in life. The idol of Lord Shiva at Varanasi on the bank of holy river Ganges is one of the five jyotir lingas in India believed to be self-incarnated (swayam bhuva); other four, viz., (1) Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu State; (2) Srisailam on the banks of river Krishna in Andhra Pradesh; (3) Dwarika in Gujarat Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(10)SC660; (1997)5SCC393
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Respondent 1, even though duly served, has not chosen to appear.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Agartala Bench, Agartala dated 5-7-1996 in civil Rule No. 88 of 1992 filed by Respondent 1. The husband of Respondent 1, Prafulla Chandra Sarkar, was a Labour Sardar in the M.B. Tilla, FCI Godown. It appears that while travelling from Gaya to Calcutta he fell down from the train and he has not been seen thereafter. In the writ petition Respondent 1 sought the relief for making inquiry into the circumstances about the disappearance of her husband and the High Court while disposing of the said writ petition has given the following direction :Accordingly, we close this writ application but under the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the authority to give some suitable employment or lump sum monetary compensation to this poor lady so that she may live a decent life. This shall be ...
Tag this Judgment!