Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR707]; JT2006(12)SC578; 2006(10)SCALE86; (2006)8SCC192; 2006(3)ShimLC293
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 8819 of 1999.3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:Respondent Bikash Kuanar's father was working as an Extra Development Delivery Agent (for short, 'EDDA') in Narangochha B.O. and, on his superannuation a vacancy arose in the said post. The respondent herein had applied for the said post. In the process of selection, the respondent was selected and posted vide order dated 2.7.1998. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent joined the service. The respondent, to his utter surprise and astonishment, on 2.1.1999 received a letter, wherein it was stated that the selection vis--vis the appointment of the respondent was reviewed and, thereafter, his appointment had been cancelled.4. The respondent, aggrieved by the said order dated 2.1.1999, filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. A co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(207)ELT3(SC); JT2006(9)SC125; 2006(10)SCALE206; (2006)11SCC709; 2007(2)SLJ8(SC); 2008[11]STR305
RAVEENDRAN, J. The petitioners in all these petitions, served as Medical, Dental and Veterinary officers in the Army Medical Corps (AMC), Army Dental Corps (ADC) and Veterinary Corps ('RVC') controlled by the Ministry of Defence (for short, 'Ministry'). All of them retired prior to 1.1.1996. These petitions involve a common question relating to calculation of their pension. 2. Defence Ministry Circular dated 31.12.1965 barred private practice (which was a traditionally enjoyed privilege) by AMC officers with effect from 1.1.1966 and conveyed the sanction of the President to the grant of a Non-Practising Allowance ('NPA' for short) to all AMC officers irrespective of the rank, with a stipulation that such NPA shall be treated as Pay for all purposes. Ministry circular dated 2.11.1987 clarified that NPA will be treated as 'pay' for all service matters, and will be taken into account for computing Dearness Allowance and other allowances as well as for calculation of retirement benefits. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(1)JCR22(SC)]; JT2006(12)SC581; 2006(10)SCALE89; (2006)11SCC492; 2007(2)SLJ68(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. In both these appeals challenge is to the legality of the common judgment passed by the Patna High Court dismissing of different Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellants. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals. It was held that the view of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging their reversion as well as recovery of the amounts paid on account of promotion was in order.3. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:Except some of the appellants who were Class IV employees remaining appellants were holding Class III posts, that is, Basic Health Workers. They were promoted to the post of Clerk in the year 1992. Subsequently, an audit team raised objection to the said promotions expressing the view that the appellants could not have been promoted. On the basis of the audit report action was taken. State Government was of the view that promotions granted were i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC51; 2006CriLJ4772; [2007(2)JCR54(SC)]; JT2006(12)SC590; 2007(1)MPHT1; 2007(1)OLR(SC)143; 2006(10)SCALE62; (2006)11SCC473
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The State of Tamil Nadu is in appeal questioning correctness of the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court holding that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the respondent in terms of Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act').2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:The respondent was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation for the earlier offence and RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation for the latter offence. The conviction was recorded and sentenced imposed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge Pudukottai. The said judgment in Special Case No.4 of 1991 was challenged before the Madras High Court which by the judgment dated 28....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC107; II(2006)DMC804SC; JT2006(12)SC586; 2006(10)SCALE82
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dismissing the appeal of the appellant and maintaining his conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court.3. Appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') relatable to the death of He was found guilty by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence relatable to Section 304-B IPC but no separate sentence was imposed for the offence relatable to Section 498-A IPC though he was found guilty of the said offence. Smt. Shyam Bai who faced trial with the appellant was acquitted by the trial Court.4. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:Appellant got married with the deceased on 4.5.1997. Acquitted accused Smt. Shyam Bai is the aunt of appellant. In the wee hours of...
Tag this Judgment!