Q: Write about the citation of Sushil Kumar Tipathi Vs. Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University and Ors., 2021 ?

Ans: Sushil Kumar Tipathi Vs. Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University and Ors., 2021

On 19th July, 2006, the Registrar of the University replied that since his post was only for the Tenth Plan which was going to expire on 31st March, 2007, his services would be automatically terminated on the said date i.e.31st March, 2007. The appellant received another communication, dated 1st March, 2007, from the Registrar of the University stating that his services were no more required by the University with effect from 31st March, 2007, as his post was abolished. 

This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8th February,2008, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 20470 of 2007, by which the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed.

In view of the facts, the honourable Supreme Court find that the termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and not in accordance with law. Consequently, the honourable Supreme Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and allow the appeal.

In the circumstances, the respondent-University is directed to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and also grant him the benefit of continuity of services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, if any. The appellant will not, however, be entitled to any disbursement of salary for the period from 31st March, 2007, till the date of reinstatement as he has not worked for the said period on the principle of "no work, no pay".

The appellant is, however, entitled to notional fixation of salary and other benefits in the event other persons similarly situated to the appellant, have been extended such benefits by the University.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Describe the citation of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in brief ?

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ?

Ans: Learned counsels fortified their arguments on the basis of observations in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ,  more specifically in paragraph 42, where the Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under Article 226, have the power of judicial review even in respect of courts martial and the High Courts can grant appropriate relief if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 with present case ?

Ans: Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signalman in “4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment”. Apparently, appellant had not commended himself well to Respondent 4, who was the commanding officer of the regiment. On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the norms for presenting representations to higher officers. Appellant is stated to have sent representation complaining ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers. Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4. Army Act Section 41(2) Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer In that he at 15.30 hrs. on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the Orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so. To try this offence a su...
Read more