No arrears in case of retrospective promotion: HC

No arrears in case of retrospective promotion: HC

28 Dec 2008, 1232 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that an employee is not entitled to arrears if he or she is promoted with retrospective effect.

Justice S N Aggarwal passed the order on a petition filed by an employee of India Tourism Development Corporation, seeking court's direction to the government to grant her arrears for the period during which she was denied promotion and was later given promotion with retrospective effect.

"I hold that she is not entitled to any arrears of salary for the period of her notional promotion preceding the date of her actual promotion," the court said.

The court referred previous Supreme Court verdict formulating the doctrine of "no work no pay".

"It has been held that the salary and allowances of a promotional post cannot be granted to an incumbent as no work was done by employee in the promotional post till the time the incumbent was actually promoted," the court referring to apex court judgement.

The petitioner, Shashi Kiran Suri, had pleaded that as she was denied the promotion because of the mistake of the administration, the authorities are bound to pay the arrears of salary along with the benefit with retrospective effect to undo their mistake.

The Corporation, however, contended that the promotion was not granted to her because of pendency of chargesheet against her at the relevant time.

Therefore, denial of the promotion to the petitioner was bona fide and no fault can be attributed to the management in this regard, it pleaded.

Courtesy_
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

‘FIRs have to be considered in settling theft insurance claim’

‘FIRs have to be considered in settling theft insurance claim’

NEW DELHI: The convention that the FIRs cannot be a piece of evidence in criminal case has to be relaxed for settling consumers' claims pertaining to theft of insured vehicles, the National Consumer Commission has said.

“It is true that an FIR lodged with the police cannot be treated as evidence in a criminal case...in a consumer case, these strict requirements of proof are to be modulated appropriately,'' the Commission headed by Justice S N Kapoor said.

For settling claims against stolen insured vehicles, the panel said strict procedures, applied in criminal trials, needed to be relaxed and FIRs could be considered as evidence if they conclusively detailed circumstances leading to the theft.

The observations came on two cross appeals filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (OICL) and the owner of a stolen vehicle against the judgement of Punjab State Consumer Commission. Joginder Singh, the owner of the insured jeep, had filed the appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs 3.37 lakh, awarded earlier by the State Commission.

On the other hand, the OICL had sought setting aside of the State commission's judgement on various grounds including that the jeep, which was insured as private vehicle, was used for commercial purposes. The OICL disputed the factum of theft alleging nexus between the owner and the thief. The apex consumer panel set aside the orders of both -- Moga District Forum and Punjab Consumer Commission -- which directed the insurance company to pay Rs 3.37 lakh along with interest against the claim of Joginder and allowed the OICL to decide the issue on its own. - PTI

Courtesy_
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com

Sonia can hold constitutional posts: Centre before SC

‘Sonia can hold constitutional posts’

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The Centre has asserted in the Supreme Court that there is no bar on Congress president Sonia Gandhi holding high constitutional posts, though she obtained citizenship by her long stay in the country and not by birth.

“The Constitution does not make a distinction between citizens and as such no distinction can be made within the ‘single class of citizens.’ It cannot be said that natural born citizens or those covered by Article 5 stand on a higher footing than others,” the Centre said in its response to a petition filed by the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha.

The Morcha had filed a petition in the Delhi High Court for a direction to prevent Ms. Gandhi from staking a claim to form a government at the Centre on the ground that she was not an Indian by birth. It dismissed the petition.

Notice issued

On appeal, the apex court issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the issue, “no person who is not a citizen within the meaning of Article 5 has the right to be elected or appointed to any public office under the Constitution.”

Article 5 says: “Every person who was born in the territory of India; or either of whose parents was born in the territory of India or who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India.”

The Centre said: “The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for acquisition of citizenship by birth; by descent; by registration and by naturalisation. Once citizenship is acquired under the provisions of the Act, no distinction can be made in the citizenship acquired under the Act or under the Constitution.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

Courtesy_

http://www.thehindu.com

Commonwealth Games panel approaches Delhi HC against Centre

Commonwealth Games panel approaches Delhi HC against Centre

New Delhi, Dec 09: The organising committee for 2010 Commonwealth Games and the Centre are at loggerheads in the Delhi High Court as the panel has challenged the government's decision of declaring it a public authority, liable to disclose information under Right to Information Act.

The committee, which is charged with responsibility to conduct Commonwealth Games, has contended that it is an independent and autonomous body, not liable to reveal information under RTI Act.

"Petitioner Society (the committee) does not fulfill the criteria of being declared a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence it could not be declared a Public Authority under the RTI Act," the organising committee pleaded before Justice G S Sistani.

"It does not fulfill the criteria of being declared a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence it could not be declared a Public Authority under the RTI Act," it said.

Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra, however, said that almost whole budgetary support to the project is provided by the government and the Committee cannot take the plea that it is an independent body.

"The Centre is providing not only substantial upfront funds but also has undertaken to meet the shortfall between its revenue and expenditure," Malhotra said.

"The audit report of the body for the year 2005-06 shows that out of total receipt of Rs 52.72 crore, it received Rs 52.58 crore from government sources. This proves that the petitioner is receiving almost its entire funding from government sources," he said while justifying the government's decision.

Bureau Report

Courtesy_
http://www.zeenews.com

Madras HC convicted Tenant for Contempt of Court

Madras HC awards tenant detention punishment for contempt of court

12/10/2008

The Madras High Court has awarded a punishment of a month’s of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2, 000 to a person for having committed contempt of court.

Justice M Jeyapaul said Govindaraj, who suffered a decree for eviction and undertook to vacate a rented premises within four months, fabricated a receipt to show that it was passed on by land owner and deliberately disobeyed the High Court’s order as also an affidavit of undertaking he had given.

Following submission by his counsel that Govindaraj had been hospitalised, Justice Jeyapaul, on Monday suspended his order till tomorrow.

If he did not surrender before December 12, the Registry should issue a non-bailable warrant against him, the judge said.

Confirming the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, counsel for Govindaraj had sought six months to vacate the premises.

But the High Court, while dismissing the petition, granted four months to the respondent to vacate and hand over the premises to the landlady H Suraj Bai of T Nagar.

It also asked Govindaraj to file an undertaking. He filed the affidavit, undertaking to deliver the vacant possession to the petitioner by March this year.

Through her power agent, the landlady contended that despite a telegram sent to the tenant of his undertaking, he failed to hand over possession of the premises.

Allowing the contempt application, Justice Jeyapaul said before taking up the petition enquiry, the respondent was asked whether he was prepared to deliver the portion in his occupation to the petitioner in compliance with the court order and his undertaking, but he refused and chose to contest the contempt petition.

Therefore, the tenant’s conduct of disobeying the court order and his undertaking was found contumacious, the judge added.

UNI

Courtesy_
http://www.indlawnews.com

Consumer Court tells GH to pay Rs 5 lakh

Consumer Court tells GH to pay Rs 5 lakh

Chennai Dec. 1: A consumer court on Monday ordered the Government General Hospital and the state health secretary to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for medical negligence at the hospital, which caused the death of a 14-year-old boy in 2001. According to the complainant, the boy K.Loganathan attended a ‘health check up’ camp jointly organised by his school and the state health department under ‘Varumun Kapom’ scheme in January 2001. He was asked to undergo a surgery for the removal of tonsils in his throat. As per the guidance of the doctors, his father Kothandaraman admitted his son at the General Hospital in the city for surgery.

After the surgery, a postgraduate student under the supervision of the duty doctor gave an injection to Loganathan. When his body turned blue, he was shifted to a separate room and he was declared dead after two hours. Suspecting something fishy about his son's death, Kothandaraman filed a case in the high court in 2002. Through the court proceedings, the post mortem examination report was verified and it was learnt that medical negligence caused Loganathan's death. Seeking compensation for 'deficiency of services', Kothandaraman filed a case in the consumer court on 2005.

After hearing the arguments and verifying the documents, the consumer court ordered payment of compensation for the loss, mental agony and stress suffered by the complainant. The judge said, “The court has ordered the Goverment hospital and the state health secretary to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs within six weeks. Victims should come forward to file cases against medical negligence. The court is ready to take up issues of ‘deficiency of services’ in all forms.” When contacted, Health Secretary V.K.Subburaj said, “When compared to private hospitals, the rate of medical negligence in government hospitals is limited. If any negligence is proved, we will cut the salary and increments of the medical officer concerned.”

Courtesy_
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com