Anganwadi workers entitled to gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court on 25/04/2022 held that Anganwadi workers and helpers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972 .

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ajay Rastogi ruled that the Payment of Gratuity Act will be applicable to Anganwadi centres, observing that time has to come to improve the working conditions of such workers.

"Time has come when the Central government/State governments has to collectively consider as to whether looking to the nature of work and exponential increase in the Anganwadi centers and to ensure quality in the delivery of services and community participation and ... find out modalities in providing better service conditions of the voiceless commensurate to the nature of job discharged by them." 

Justice Oka who authored the lead judgment said that Anganwadi workers are currently being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central Government.

"It is high time that the Central government and State governments take serious note of the plight of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) who are expected to render such important services to the society," Justice Oka said in his judgment.

Punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can't be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount.

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee.

"Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee", the Court said.

A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in Union of India's special leave petition challenging Madras High Court's order confirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal modifying the punishment imposed on a postal assistant from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement.

Madras High Court directs State to immediately ban two-finger test used on survivors of sexual offences

Read Judgment

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 21/4/22 directed the State government to immediately ban the practice of the two-finger test conducted by medical professionals on survivors of sexual offences .

The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in several decisions, had held the test to be unconstitutional. It thus deemed it necessary to issue a direction to the State government to end the practice.

"In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we have no doubt that the two finger test cannot be permitted to be continued. Therefore, we issue a direction to the State Government to ban the practice of two finger test on victims of sexual offences by the medical professionals forthwith.-The Court

The Court also noted that High Courts in other states had also deprecated the practice. The Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v Rameshchandra Ramabhai Panchal held that the two-finger test is the most unscientific method of examination used in the context of sexual assault and has no forensic value.

Husband can also invoke provision for maintenance/ permanent alimony under Hindu Marriage Act: Bombay High Court

Read Judgment

The Bombay High Court recently declined to interfere with a Nanded court's orders directing a school teacher to pay interim maintenance to her ex-husband, who claimed to have no sources of income.

Single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre held that the provisions relating to maintenance and permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked by the needy spouse which can also be the husband.

"The provision of maintenance / permanent alimony being a beneficial provision for the indigent spouse, the said section can be invoked by either of the spouse, where a decree of any kind governed by Sections 9 to 13 has been passed and marriage tie is broken, disrupted or adversely affected by such decree of the court." -Bombay High Court 

Article 14 has no application to dispositions under Will: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court on 30-03-22 held that in cases of execution of a will, there is no place for the Courts to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children.

"In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a will." -Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that none of the circumstances that the High Court set out to rule in favour of respondents created any suspicion regarding the execution of the wills.

"The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will is already well-settled and it needs no reiteration....Cases in which suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned,"