Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)SCALE134; (2000)10SCC587
ORDER1. Despite order of 13th September, 1999 having been passed requiring stoppage of industrial effluent which did not conform to the parameters prescribed by the C.P.C.B. being discharged into the river Yamuna directly or indirectly, nothing appears to have been done except issuance of few notices in the Press requiring the industries to establish effluent treatment plants. Mr. Verma informed the Court that notices have been issued to 1142 industrial units by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee ordering the closure of the said units and notices have also been issued to the Departments to cut the electricity and water supply to these units.2. We had on the last occasion required the National Capital Territory of Delhi to submit a report within eight weeks from that day with regard to what steps have been taken for the implementation of this Court's orders. It is regretted that no report has been filed dealing with industrial effluents, the only affidavit which has been filed pertai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2386; JT2000(5)SC413; 2000(4)SCALE268; (2000)7SCC561
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. These Civil Appeals arise out of several writ petitions filed in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in which common judgment was delivered on 14.12.1998. The judgment of the High Court deals with power of Government to appoint officers on promotion temporarily for periods of more than six months without consulting the Public Service Commission, grant of seniority to such promotees in respect of service within their quota and also outside quota. Validity of the order passed by the State Government on 2.1.1998 regularising, at one stroke, several ad hoc promotions made between 25.5.1973 to 31.12.1996 was in issue, so far as the Electrical Wing was concerned. We are concerned only with the regularisation of ad hoc Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers (see Point 2 in the High Court Judgment). The High Court held that ad hoc/stop-gap service of promotees could not be regularised. A contention wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC422; (2003)IIILLJ530SC; (2000)9SCC429; (2000)3UPLBEC2360
1. Respondent No. 1 herein, was appointed as Chowkidar in the Work Charged Establishment of Government of Orissa on 1.7.1961. Respondent No. 2 was also appointed in the same capacity on 22.12.1965. Respondent No. 3 joined as Mechanic in the Work Charged Establishment in the Irrigation Department of Government of Orissa on 6.11.1961. Subsequently, they retired on different dates viz., Respondent No. 1 in the year 1978, Respondent No. 2 in the year 1985 and Respondent No. 3 in the year 1986. Subsequently, the aforesaid Respondents filed an Original Application before the Orissa State Administrate Tribunal with a prayer that they ought to have been absorbed in the regular service in view of the resolution dated 22.1.1965 and if they are notionally absorbed they will be entitled to pension. It appears that the Appellants neither contested the said application nor filed any counter affidavit. With the result, the Tribunal accepted the case of the Respondents and directed the Appellants to g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3075; JT2000(7)SC418; (2001)10SCC565; (2000)3UPLBEC2357
1. The petitioners herein are the retired civil servants. They were given pension after their retirement. They commuted 100% pension, with the result their pension became nil. However, they continued to be treated as pensioners by virtue of the order dated 15-12-95. The petitioners filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying several reliefs. One of the reliefs in the writ petition is as follows: iv) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction placing the petitioners herein on the same footing as those optees/absorbees who had exercised option No. (b) mentioned herein above and issue directions that the commutation of 2/3rd pension should be allowed with the same benefits as extended to category (b) optees/absorbees or the petitioners in the Common Cause judgment of this Hon'ble Court..2. At the time when notice was issued on this petition, it was directed to be tagged with W.P. (C) No. 576/99. Subsequently, the W.P. (C) No. 576/99 came up for hearing before a Bench o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC415; (2000)3MLJ87(SC); 2000(6)SCALE449; (2000)9SCC420
ORDERV.N. Khare and S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. Appellant herein is the landlord. He filed a petition for eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground of sub-letting, default in payment of arrears of rent and wrong user of the premises before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller found that respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises to respondent No. 2 and, therefore, exposed himself for eviction. Consequently, the petition was allowed. Aggrieved, the respondents went up in appeal. The appellate court found that since the appellant has not sought eviction of the tenant from Chaubara, therefore, partial ejectment is not permissible under the Act. The appellate court also found that respondent No. 2 is the direct tenant of the landlord and, therefore, there was no subletting. It is on these grounds the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved, the landlord filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC before the High Court. The Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)124; 2000CriLJ4591; 2000(3)CTC249; JT2000(7)SC539
1. This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court. The respondent was charged under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that he made a demand for a sum of Rs. 270/- from one Mithailal and pursuant to the said demand, the money was paid which also was recovered from the Rest Room at the Police Station. The accused happens to be a Police Officer. The Special Judge convicted the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, But on appeal, the High Court has set aside the conviction and recorded an order of acquittal. 2. On examining the materials on record, the High Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish either the demand made by the accused or even the payment by the complainant and, therefore, the offence cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Mithailal, the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000CriLJ4993; JT2000(7)SC468; (2000)9SCC257
1. This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court of Bombay acquitting the accused-respondent of his conviction under Section 498A of the I.P.C.2. The accused stood charged under Sections 498A and 306, I.P.C., and the learned trial Judge acquitted him of the charge under Section 306, I.P.C., but convicted under Section 498A, I.P.C. On an appeal being carried, the High Court examined the entire material on record and came to the conclusion that there is not an iota of material on the basis of which the cruelty which is the necessary ingredient for bringing home the charge under Section 498A, I.P.C. can be said to have been established and accordingly acquitted him.3. Mr. Deshpande, appearing for the State vehemently contended that the oral evidence read with the letters supposed to have been written by the deceased to her brother as well as other persons unequivocally indicates the treatment that was meted out to her by the accused and therefore, the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR741]; JT2000(7)SC398; (2000)IILLJ1099SC; (2000)10SCC616
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The Respondent herein was appointed as a Driver on a fixed salary of Rs. 80/per month on 17th July, 1954. The Appellant Municipal Committee approved the said appointment on 16th September, 1954. It is alleged that with effect from 1st February, 1968 the Respondent was given for the first time the regular pay scale of Rs. 130-5-160-5-250 130-5-160-5-250 in view of the Third Pay Committee re port. It is also alleged that the Respondent also started contributing towards Provident Fund with effect from 1st February, 1968. The Respondent retired on 30th June, 1994.3. On 28th July, 1994 the State Government published rule known as Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and Generic Provident Fund Rules, which was enforced with effect from 1st April, 1990. It is alleged that an option was given under the Rules to the employees who were in the service of the Appellant-Board between 1st April, 1990 and the date of enforcement, to opt either for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR754]; JT2000(7)SC419; (2000)IILLJ1475SC; (2000)9SCC410; (2000)3UPLBEC2358
1. Respondents herein were teachers in private schools. Subsequently, those private Higher Secondary Schools were taken over by the Punjab Government. Thereafter, it became the liability of the State Government to pay salary to the teachers employed in such institutions. Subsequently, the Respondents retired from service. Since they had put in less than 10 years of service the Appellants declined to give pensionary benefits to them. Under such circumstances, they filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court without giving any opportunity to the Appellants to file any written statement allowed the Writ Petition in the light of a decision rendered by a co-ordinate bench of that Court in the case of Dev Dutt Kaushal v. State of Punjab : AIR1996SC85 and directed the Appellants to pay pension to the Respondents. It is in this way the Appellants are in appeal before us.2. Learned Counsel brought to our notice that the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC469
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. This appeal is against an order of acquittal passed by a Designated Court for the offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the TADA') and certain other offences under the Arms Act. Appeal is at the instance of the State. The nub of the case against the Respondent is that a firearm was recovered from the cupboard of a room on the strength of the information elicited from the Respondent on 14.9.1990. A portion of the such information which possibly be admitted is the following :.I will point out the place where I have kept that rifle and the cartridges, accompany me. 2. The Designated Court was inclined to believe the fact that the police officer who recorded the said information would have stopped eliciting from the accused anything regarding the spot where the weapon was kept, or at least the place where the spot is located, or at least some other idea regarding the place of such conceal...
Tag this Judgment!