Service matters- promotion on basis of reservation- Appellant’s case was that it could not have been appointed to solitary post of Lecturer in English Department on the basis of reservation and that fifth respondent who was senior to appellant, had been offered said post…
Service matters- Respondents were initially appointed as Naib Tehsildar and thereafter promoted and confirmed as Tehsildars – Respondent filed a writ petition contending that even though they were initially appointed on ad hoc basis…
Service matters- Respondents claimed retiral benefits of her late husband who was appointed on post of bus conductor by appellants- Benefits were claimed on basis that her husband should be deemed to have voluntary retired from service instead of having resigned…
Service Matters – Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Rules 2000- Petitioners were serving and retired employees of Supreme Court Legal Services Committees in various capacities- They Claimed that entire service rendered by them should be treated as qualifying services for purpose of fixing retiral benefits…
Section 14, read with section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007- Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters – Supreme Court was called upon to decide question as to whether an appeal against order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court relating to Armed Forces Personnel is required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or said appeal should be heard by the Larger Bench of High Court…
Service Matter- Respondent was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor on 11-02-1963 – He attained age of superannuation on 31/01/1997- At time of retirement, he was in pay scale of Rs3700- 5000 as per fourth pay commission report – After his retirement, Govt accepted Vth pay commission report and passed an order on 02/02/2007 to amend pay scales of U.P. w.e.f. 01/04/2001- Respondent made a representation contending that he should also be given the benefit of Govt. order dated 02-02-2007, and his pension be revised w.e.f 01/01/1996….
Initial burden of proof is on temporary workers to prove that they worked continuously for 240 days in an year in order to seek re-employment as a matter of right
Where writ petition filed by casual workers for regularization of their services was allowed by High Court since it was not function of Court to frame scheme of regularization of services of workers, order passed by High Court was to be set aside.
Amount paid by employer to workman during pendency of industrial dispute as per provisions of section 17B of Industrial dispute Act, 1947, could not be recovered subsequently even when dispute was finally decided against said workman.
In Terms of amended definition of word ’employee’ under section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 by Amending Act no. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect form 3-4-1997, A teacher is eligible to claim benefit of gratuity under Provision of Act.