Digi - Legal Insights

Only those certified as not part of Creamy Layer by specified date qualify for OBC benefits and State Government revisit three-year validity rule for OBC Certificates, suggesting that it undermines certificates intended purpose due to potential income changes over time.

Order of termination unsustainable due to absence of a domestic inquiry amid serious allegations and criminal proceedings.

Tribunals order of illegal termination upheld, affirming that reinstatement should be accompanied by back wages as management had unreasonably opted not to re-employ terminated workers despite their availability.

Decision taken by the State to cancel selection process and appointments cannot be faulted with.

Petitioners have failed to comply with previous judicial directives, including two undertakings regarding Respondent No.1s status, indicating willful defiance of Court orders.

Impugned orders are not lengthy orders, but reasons assigned for rejecting proposals cannot be faulted.

Respondent, who has served Petitioner for over 8 years and completed 240 days, is entitled to notice before retrenchment and compensation.

If qualifying service is complete, pension cannot be denied on premise that employee was working as an Untrained Teacher.

Excess payment has been made to Petitioner for period in excess of five years before order of recovery made thus, Respondent no.4-Deputy Chief Executive Officer directed to repay amount of Rs.1,35,518/- to Petitioner.

Petitioner cannot claim absolute office access due to his reliance on administration and public office work, despite multiple declarations of "Personanon-grata".

Boards order directing employer to pay wages of 12 workers along with levies and interest was deemed an exercise of powers not conferred by statute thus, it is directed to consider whether workers can be provided work elsewhere.

Minor infraction of quorum rules does not disqualify an elected representative, even if quorum was insufficient.

Petitioners were daily wagers under employment of Respondent Corporation hence, their services cannot be regularized.

Petitioners husbands excess payment was never investigated or recovered during his lifetime and Respondents failed to provide evidence that recovery can be made from his legal heirs after his death.

Retired government employee is not entitled to receive gratuity until payment of penal rent.

Stand of Respondents that Petitioners illness affects the establishments efficiency and they should terminate his services, however, such a stand of Respondents cannot be countenanced as same is in teeth of provisions of Section 20 (1)(4) of Act.

Article 30 of Constitution grants the State the right to appoint teachers, subject to eligibility conditions, but this right cannot be diluted by State insisting on appointment by Board of Directors.

Retired government employee is not entitled to receive gratuity until payment of penal rent.

Respondents single option was unjustified and violated Disabilities Act, 2016 hence, Respondent directed to recommend Petitioner against any vacant posts in selection process for visually impaired candidates.

Tribunals decision to delay review is unjustified and stifles legitimate claim of Respondent no.1 but Court is not inclined to interfere with order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution.