Voluntary Retirement Scheme Does Not Extinguish Employee's Right To Challenge Disciplinary Penalties: Delhi HC

Read Judgment

The court examined the scope and content of the SVRS and Sharma's undertaking. It acknowledged that while Sharma had accepted the scheme with the understanding that his salary would be calculated based on his reduced pay scale, the benefits being claimed did not form part of the retirement package.

The court analyzed BSES's reliance on the A.K. Bindal judgment. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee who avails voluntary retirement cannot later seek financial benefits like pay revision. However, the court here noted that A.K. Bindal dealt with pay revisions directly linked to retirement packages, whereas Sharma's claim arose from a disciplinary action unrelated to the SVRS package itself. Thirdly, the court referred to A. Satyanarayana Reddy, which allowed employees to claim certain financial benefits post-retirement if those claims were not explicitly covered under the SVRS. In Sharma's case, the court found that the pay revision linked to the penalty reduction was a separate issue, not part of the retirement benefits package under SVRS.

Government Employee Can't Refuse To Join New Place Of Posting While Contesting Transfer : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Court opined that when a person works for the government, the incidence of transfer becomes inherent in the terms of service unless it is specifically barred. As such, once relieved from a particular place of posting, the employee has no right to remain absent or to refute to the new place of posting. He can join the new posting place and continue contesting the transfer.

 "..an employee has no right to remain absent or refuse to join the new place of transfer once relieved from their current place of posting. The employee is entitled to avail all available remedies for redressal of grievances, but it does not entitle them to not comply with the transfer orders. The employee is well within his rights to join the transferred place of posting and still continue to avail the remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievances against the transfer."

Two primary concerns were flagged by the Court relating to such absenteeism of employees:

(i) Transfers are made by authorities to fill vacancies in new places of posting. If transferred employees don't join, optimal service at full capacity can't be provided;

(ii) While the challenge to transfer is underway, authorities would have to employ other individuals to fill the vacancies. This would amount to paying twice for the same job - firstly, to the individual who is actually performing the job, and secondly, to the transferred employee who is unauthorizedly absent.

"Such a situation would result in nothing but burning a hole in the pocket of public exchequer, lead to the excessive financial burden on the Government institutions, and would fundamentally jeopardize public interest", the Court said.

Briefly put, the Court was dealing with the case of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and 6 private respondents, who initially challenged their transfer orders by the University before the Madras High Court. A Single Judge allowed the respondents' pleas and quashed the transfer orders. Against the same, the appellant-University filed writ appeals. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant-university's appeals. Aggrieved by the same, it approached the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's initial orders, the private respondents joined their new places of posting. However, an issue remained with regard to regularization for the period during which they did not join services despite transfer.

With regard to 4 respondents, who had interim orders in their favor from the High Court, the appellant-University conceded that it was not opposed to regularization and payment of arrears.

So far as the other 2 respondents, the Court noted that without any interim order in their favor, they remained unauthorizedly absent from service during the pendency of their petitions before the Single Judge of the High Court. As such, they could not be regularized and/or paid arrears for the said period. However, they were entitled to regularization and payment of salaries for the period after the Single Judge pronounced the decision quashing the transfer orders.

"Despite there being no interim order in their favour, respondent nos. 4 and 7 continued to remain absent after being relieved from their original place of posting. As such, this Court is not inclined to extend any benefit of salary for the period of unauthorised absence. However, as the transfer order was quashed by the learned Single Judge, their service periods shall continue to be treated in continuity, and they would be entitled to whatever other benefits accrued to them due to this continuity, but no salary for the said period of unauthorised absence."

Ultimately, the appeals were allowed, with a direction to the appellant-University to clear arrears of the private respondents, subject to the condition that two respondents (who did not have interim orders in their favour) were not to be paid for the period of unauthorized absence.

Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Man For Criticizing Muslim Girl's Handshake.'Can't Impose One's Religious Belief On Another'

This comes as the Court dismissed a petition filed by Abdul Noushad of Kottakkal, who has been accused of criticising a Muslim girl for shaking hands with former Finance Minister Thomas Issac at a public event. 

• Petition dismissed against woman shaking hands with ex-minister
• Court says shaking hands is a traditional gesture
• Video circulated accusing woman of violating Shariat Law

The Kerala High Court has refused to quash the proceedings against a man who made allegations against a Muslim girl that she committed adultery and violated Shariat Law by shaking hands with the former Finance Minister of Kerala, observing that no religious belief stands above the Constitution.

The ruling came by a single-judge bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan, who dismissed a petition filed by Abdul Noushad of Kottakkal, accused of criticising the Muslim girl for shaking hands with former Finance Minister Thomas Issac at a public event.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan noted that "shaking hands" is a traditional gesture that symbolises greeting, respect, courtesy, agreement, deal, friendship, solidarity, etc

The woman complainant accused Abdul Noushad of circulating a video through WhatsApp that contained a speech claiming that she had violated Shariat Law by shaking hands with a man. According to the video, the act was considered adultery because she, as a woman, had touched another man.

The incident occurred when the woman, a second-year law student at Markaz Law College, participated in an interactive session with former Finance Minister Thomas Isaac, during which students received gifts for asking questions. After accepting the gifts, they shook hands with Isaac. However, the petitioner shared a video alleging that the woman had violated Shariat Law, leading to police charges against him under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

The woman stated that the video brought disgrace to both her and her family. The court observed that a courageous Muslim woman had come forward, asserting that the video's distribution infringed upon her freedom of religious belief.

"In such situations, our Constitution will protect her interests. Moreover, society has to support her," Justice Kunhikrishnan said.

"No religious belief is above the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme," he added.

Emphasising the importance of personal choice in religious practice, the court also stated that "there is no compulsion in religion, especially in Islam".

In the ruling, the court highlighted that one individual cannot force another to adhere to their religious beliefs, reinforcing the idea that religious practice is a personal decision for every citizen. The court asserted, "The woman in the case has a right to follow a religious practice in her own way," stressing that no one should impose their beliefs on others.

Demanding sex from spouse does not constitute cruelty: Allahabad high court

Read Judgment

How will spouses satisfy sexual urges if not from each other? Allahabad High Court junks cruelty case

A husband or a wife demanding sex from the other does not constitute cruelty, Allahabad HC said while dismissing a dowry and torture case filed against a Noida resident by his estranged spouse as one motivated by "sexual incompatibility" between the couple.

"If a man would not demand sexual favours from his wife and vice-versa, where will they go to satisfy their physical urges in a morally civilised society," Justice Anish Kumar Gupta said in an Oct 3 ruling. He was hearing a petition filed by the husband, asking for criminal proceedings against him to be quashed. The dowry case against him - he was also accused of forcing his wife into "unnatural sex" - was pending in a Gautam Buddh Nagar court.

Justice Gupta cited the FIR and the complainant's recorded statement to conclude that assault, if any, was triggered not by any unfulfilled demand for dowry but by the wife's refusal to "fulfil the sexual urges of the husband". "In any of the events, the wife has ever sustained no injury. From the facts of the case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be an offence of cruelty in Section 498A of IPC. There is no averment concerning any specific demand of dowry made by any specific person except general and vague allegations," Justice Gupta said.

The couple married in 2015, after which the man and his family allegedly demanded a dowry. The husband was also accused of abusing and assaulting his wife. When she objected, he allegedly tried to strangle her.

Suspension Of Sentence Can't Be Denied Merely Because Another Trial Is Pending Against Accused : Supreme Court

READ JUDGMENT

The accused demanded parity with other co-accused, who were granted the benefit of suspension of sentence. The state opposed the plea for suspension of the sentence of one of the accused on the ground that a trial in another criminal case was pending against him. 

It was contended by the accused/appellant that mere pendency of the trial should not stand in the way of this Court considering The Supreme Court yesterday (Oct. 4) observed that the pendency of the trial against the accused in one case cannot be a ground for denying him the benefit of a suspension of sentence. 

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra granted a relief to the accused who was convicted in a murder case but denied the benefit of the suspension of sentence by the High Court. 

the prayer of the appellant-Narendra Singh for suspension of sentence. 

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court accepted the Appellant's contention and granted him the benefit of suspension of sentence. 

“That apart, mere pendency of the other trial where the appellant-Narendra Singh is an accused (on bail) cannot be regarded as sufficient for denying him the benefit of suspension of sentence in this case. After all, he is presumed to be innocent till found guilty.”, the court observed.

“Bearing in mind the above factors, we are of the view that the appellants have made out sufficient ground for suspension of sentence and release on bail upon such terms and conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Court.”,