Alapan Bandyopadhyay’s appeal against the CAT’s decision to move his case from Kolkata to Delhi dismissed by the Delhi High Court
Former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay filed a plea in the Delhi High Court challenging a decision by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to transfer a matter filed by him from Kolkata to Delhi.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued the order after the matter was reserved for orders on February 25. “This Court sees no basis to overturn the aforementioned order for the reasons stated. The petition gets thrown out. The Court has made it clear that it has made no comments on the disciplinary proceedings, including the Central government’s authority to initiate such proceedings “as per the bench.
Supreme Court issued a notice in response to a petition for ‘Judicial Vista,’ a central authority to fund court infrastructure.
On a petition seeking the development of a ‘Judicial Vista’ around the existing Supreme Court facilities, as well as a central authority to support judicial infrastructure, the Supreme Court gave notice to its administrative wing and the Central government.
In the public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, who appeared in person, a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose issued notice.
The petitioner requested that the area surrounding the top court be redeveloped as a Judicial Vista, citing a lack of space for judges, advocates, and litigants on the existing premises.
It also proposed the establishment of a centrally regulated institution to disburse funding for the construction of judicial infrastructure at courts and tribunals across the country, paid solely from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Even if a parent is refused custody of their child, they should be permitted access to their child: Karnataka High Court
Despite orders from a Canadian court granting custody to the father, the Karnataka High Court recently allowed a woman to keep custody of her child. However, a Division Bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and S Vishwajith Shetty awarded the father visiting privileges and ordered that he be allowed to contact the kid and be kept up to date on her progress.
While doing so, the Court made the following ruling: “When both parents live in different countries, the parent who is refused custody of the child should have access to the child. The parents have a responsibility to offer an environment that is reasonably conducive to the child’s development. It is in the child’s best interests to have parental care from both parents, if not jointly, then separately.”
In this instance, the petitioner father filed a writ of habeas corpus with the High Court, requesting the production of his 10-year-old daughter and allowing him to accompany her to Canada, where she was born.
Patna High Court orders State to take immediate action for adjudication of criminal cases against MPs, MLAs
The Patna High Court has issued a series of orders to the state government to expedite the adjudication of pending criminal proceedings involving members of the Bihar legislature (MPs and MLAs). While hearing a suo motu public interest litigation, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S Kumar issued the orders (PIL). The court was informed that 598 First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed in these matters, with 520 of them receiving charge sheets.
The Bench ordered that arguments and cross-examination of defence witnesses be completed within four weeks in cases scheduled for arguments and cross-examination. The State, according to the Advocate General, will fully cooperate and will not take any unnecessary adjournments. In cases where accused persons’ statements were to be recorded, the Bench ordered that the statements be recorded in four weeks and the trial be completed in three months. Taking note of 268 cases in various Bihar courts where the prosecution was to present evidence, the trial was ordered to be expedited and, if possible, conducted on a daily basis.
Employees’ union’s petition against Air India’s disinvestment is rejected by the Madras High Court
The Madras High Court denied an appeal by the Air Corporation Employees Union, which sought orders from the Central government to protect employees’ rights and working conditions before the government disinvests and privatises Air India.
The Court stated that there was no enforceable right requiring its participation, and that an economic policy choice cannot be routinely subjected to judicial audit. “An economic policy choice in the public interest cannot be submitted to judicial audit on a regular or routine basis just because the employees were not given a chance to be heard,” the verdict stated.
As a result, it is too late to halt the disinvestment process based on such a slick challenge, it noted. The Court went on to say that a request for a writ of mandamus seeking negative direction presupposes that everything about the disinvestment process was flawed. The Court stated, “It is too late in the day to draw any such presumption following the signing of the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).”
Tamil Nadu government is being investigated by the Supreme Court for making compassionate appointments in contravention of a 1994 judgement
The Tamil Nadu government was chastised by the Supreme Court for disobeying its 1994 verdict on compassionate appointments to the rank of Assistant Engineers and the calculation of their seniority. Tamil Nadu’s failure to follow the Court’s 1994 ruling in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana was “unpardonable,” according to a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka.
“This attitude of the Government of Tamil Nadu in avoiding this Court’s judgement in Nagpal’s case dated May 4, 1994, which was not only the law but also binding on the State Government under Article 141 of the Constitution, if still overlooked and flouted in this manner, such an act of the State Government is unpardonable and cannot be countenanced by this Court,” the judgement said.
[Employees Compensation Act] Interest on compensation is calculated from the date of death, not from the date of the order: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the deceased’s duty to pay compensation and interest under the Employees Compensation Act of 1923 began on the day of the deceased’s death, not on the date of the Commissioner’s compensation order.
According to Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna, compensation under Section 4 must be given as soon as it becomes due under Section 4A(1) of the Act.
“As a result, the sum of compensation is said to fall due upon the death of the employee/deceased immediately. As a result, the obligation to pay the compensation would emerge immediately upon the deceased’s death “The Court upheld the ruling.
Allahabad High Court reinstated the Hindus’ claim to the Shahi Masjid Mosque in Mathura
A public interest litigation (PIL) lawsuit seeking a direction to hand over Mathura’s Shahi Masjid, which is close to the Sri Krishna Temple, to Hindus has been restored by the Allahabad High Court.
The petition, which had been dismissed in default on January 19, 2021, was reinstated by a bench consisting of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prakash Padia. The petition will now be heard on July 25. “The order dismissing the main petition in default dated January 19, 2021 is recalled. The primary petition has been renamed and given a new number. Let the main petition be added to the roster on July 25, 2022, as per the schedule “as mentioned in the order.
The appointing authority cannot de-reserve/interchangeability of posts reserved for SC/STs to OBCs: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that an appointing body cannot change vacant seats allocated for Scheduled Castes (SC) to Other Backward Classes (OBC).
Only the Department of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes can carry out such interchangeability, according to a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari. “The interchangeability of vacant unfilled SC category posts may be possible due to the department concerned not having eligible candidates, but not by the appointing authority,” the court stated.
The appeal concerned the State of Punjab’s failure to fill vacancies for Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT) after the High Court there took it up on its own motion. Even though the vacancies were published in two different ways, 595 ETT positions in the SC/ST category remained vacant. The appellants applied for an ETT position in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, requesting “de-reservation/interchangeability” of the postings from the SC/ST to the OBC categories.
