Madras HC says heirs of temporary staff not eligible for compassionate jobs It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme.

Madras HC says heirs of temporary staff not eligible for compassionate jobs It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme.

Madras High Court 

Express News Service Updated on:  14 Dec 2025, 9:11 am 

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the central administrative tribunal (CAT) which had ordered the Southern Railway to pass appropriate orders on the application of the legal heir of a deceased temporary worker for a job under compassionate grounds.

A division bench of justice SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan held that the scheme of the Union government for compassionate appointments does not provide for appointment to the legal heir of a temporary worker.

It allowed the appeal filed by the Southern Railway challenging the April 21, 2022 order of the CAT passed on the petition filed by D Marimuthu, whose father, a casual labourer, died on harness, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

The bench noted Clause 2 (B) Note-II of the scheme of Central government for compassionate appointments defines the eligibility of only the legal heir of “Government Servant” appointed on regular basis and not those working on daily wages.

Advertisement “The scheme itself is not applicable to casual labourers, therefore, the CAT cannot expand the scope of the scheme so as to provide a government job which is in violation of the constitutional principles and would infringe the rights of numerous eligible meritorious candidates, who are all longing to secure public employment by participating in open competitive process,” the bench said in the order.

It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme. Such appointment is a concession and can never be claimed as an absolute right.

Marimuthu’s father joined the Southern Railway as a casual labourer on April 11, 1973 and his temporary status was confirmed on October 1, 1974.

He died on October 20, 1987. After a lapse of 16 years, he applied for compassionate appointment. It was rejected on the ground that the legal heirs of casual labourers are not eligible. He approached the CAT which directed Southern Railway to consider it; again, the application was rejected. He filed another petition and the CAT passed the order to check the family conditions and decide on the application. This order was challenged in the high court.

HC: No fresh probe on retd staff if rules forbid

HC: No fresh probe on retd staff if rules forbid 

Vasantha.Kumar@timesofindia.com 15.12.2025

Bengaluru : If the service rules pertaining to an organisation or entity don't permit, a de novo (fresh) inquiry against a retired employee cannot be held, ruled the Dharwad bench of the high court. Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while allowing the petition filed by Bahubali, a resident of Yallapur, Uttara Kannada district. The petitioner, chief executive officer/manager of the local Vikas Urban Cooperative Bank, was removed from service on June 30, 2018. Insubordination, revealing customers' secrets, causing disturbance during working hours, and other charges were levelled against him. He challenged the same before Registrar of Cooperative Societies and was unsuccessful as his plea was rejected on Jan 3, 2020. He then moved Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. On Aug 24, 2023, the tribunal ruled in his favour. 

However, the bank's management had reserved the liberty to hold a fresh inquiry against Bahubali if their service rules permitted the same. Challenging the said portion of the tribunal's order, Bahubali approached the high court, contending that he retired from service on May 31, 2020, and that the bank's service rules don't permit a fresh inquiry after an employee's retirement. On the other hand, the bank claimed that Bahubali indicated he was ready for settlement, and the bank was also willing for the same, yet he continued with the litigation. 

However, after perusing the materials on record and the Supreme Court's judgment in the Anant R Kulkarni case, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the apex court held that a de novo inquiry against a retired employee is impermissible in law unless the service rules so permit. Upon perusal of the bank's service rules, no liberty is reserved to the employer to conduct a de novo inquiry or any inquiry against a retired employee. If no inquiry can be held against a retired employee, the tribunal ought not to have reserved liberty to the bank to hold a de novo inquiry. That portion of the order is admittedly contrary to law. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed, the judge observed while allowing the petition.

SC: Employment on compassionate ground no ladder for promotion

SC: Employment on compassionate ground no ladder for promotion

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 15.12.2025

New Delhi : In an important ruling, Supreme Court has said that a person employed on compassionate grounds to alleviate family difficulties because of death of a parent in harness cannot seek appointment to higher posts merely because they have the requisite qualifications for the same.

 A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan on Friday reversed a Madras high court judgment directing Tami Nadu govt to promote two persons initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate grounds, due to death of their fathers, as Junior Assistants as they had the requisite qualifications for that post at the time of their appointment in 2007 and 2012. 

Both had approached HC in 2015. The bench said employment is provided on compassionate grounds to the eligible kin of an employee who dies in harness to enable the family of the deceased to tide over difficult times. “Such appointment which is arising out of exceptional circumstances cannot be used as a ladder to climb up in seniority by claiming a higher post merely on the basis that he/ she is eligible for such post,” it said. 

Writing the judgment, Justice Bindal said once the dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on a compassionate basis, their right stands exercised. “Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment to a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a case of ‘endless compassion’,” he said. 

The bench said compassionate appointment is a relief against financial hardship caused by the sudden and unforeseen loss of the earning member of a family, and employment to the kin of the deceased is provided under such circumstances to ensure that the family members do not face impoverishment.

Supreme Court orders nationwide audit of private universities after Amity University harasses student for changing her name

Supreme Court orders nationwide audit of private universities after Amity University harasses student for changing her name 

The student claimed that university officials harassed her, barred her from attending classes and even taunted her over her religion.

Supreme Court. 27.11.2025

Ritwik Choudhury Published on: 26 Nov 2025, 6:14 pm 4 min read Follow Us The Supreme Court recently directed the Union government, all States and Union Territories, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to disclose how private universities across the country were established, regulated and monitored [Ayesha Jain vs. Amity University, Noida & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria said it was necessary, in the larger public interest, to examine how private universities were created, the statutory framework under which they function and the benefits granted to them by governments.

It directed all governments to file comprehensive affidavits detailing the background, legal basis, and financial or administrative benefits extended to private universities, including land allotments and preferential treatment.

The Court also sought information on who actually controls and manages these institutions, and how their governing bodies are constituted.

Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria The Bench was hearing a petition by 23-year-old student, one Ayesha Jain, who approached the Court after Amity University allegedly refused to change her name in its rolls despite her furnishing all legal documents. She claimed that university officials harassed her, barred her from attending classes and even taunted her for changing her name to a muslim name.

Her petition detailed a series of complaints made to the UGC and the Ministry of Education, alleging that despite their intervention, the university refused to take corrective action.

The petition also accused Amity of misusing its authority and said that she lost a year of studies because of its conduct.

The controversy dates back to 2021, when the petitioner changed her name from Khushi Jain to Ayesha Jain and published it in the Gazette of India. In 2023, she completed a certificate course at Amity Finishing School under her new name and later joined Amity Business School for an MBA (Entrepreneurship) programme in 2024. However, the university allegedly refused to update her records, preventing her from attending classes and sitting for exams.

After multiple unanswered representations and complaints, Jain approached the Supreme Court in mid-2025, accusing the university of arbitrariness and discrimination.

During earlier hearings, the Court had expressed strong disapproval of the university’s conduct. On October 9, it directed Amity’s chairman and vice-chancellor to personally explain their position.

When the matter was next heard on October 14, the Court remarked that the university had made a “mockery” of its orders after it attempted to tender ₹1 lakh as compensation. It then directed the presence of Dr. Atul Chauhan, President of the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (which runs Amity Universities), and the Vice-Chancellor at the next hearing.

When the matter came up again on November 20, both officials were present before the Court and submitted their affidavits. However, instead of concluding the matter, the Bench expanded its scope significantly, observing that the issues involved in the case carried wider implications for governance and regulation of private higher education in India.

It emphasised that it wished to examine how private universities came into existence, what statutory provisions or notifications enabled their creation, and what benefits they receive from governments.

“The issues have now come before this Court, which the present coram has also deliberated in detail, in the larger public interest, it is deemed appropriate to examine the aspects relating to the creation/establishment/setting-up of all private Universities, either under the State Governments/Union Territories or the Central Government, and connected concerns,” it noted.

The Court then directed the Centre and all State and Union Territory administrations to disclose the legal basis under which each private, non-government or deemed university was established. The Court also sought complete information on the benefits granted to these institutions, including land allotments, statutory relaxations, preferential treatment and any financial or administrative concessions.

It further sought full details of the organisations and individuals who run such institutions, including the composition and selection process of their governing bodies.

“Full details of the concerned personnel connected with the establishment/management of such Universities shall be placed on record,” it said.

The UGC was also asked to explain its regulatory authority over private universities and the actual mechanism it follows to ensure compliance with statutory and policy requirements.

“The affidavit by the UGC shall cover what the statute/policy mandates as also the actual mechanism to monitor/oversee compliance by the institutions,” the Court said.

The order also called for disclosures on admissions policies, recruitment of faculty, checks on compliance with legal obligations, whether institutions claiming to operate on a “no profit, no loss” basis are doing so in reality, grievance redressal systems for students and faculty, and whether minimum statutory salaries are being paid.

The Court made the responsibility for these disclosures explicit.

“Responsibility for every disclosure and its correctness shall rest with the deponent concerned,” the Court said.

It underscored that any attempt to suppress or misrepresent facts would be viewed sternly.

“If there is any attempt to withhold, suppress, misrepresent or mis-state facts in the affidavits called for, this Court will be compelled to adopt a strict view,” the Bench said.

To ensure accountability at the highest level, the Court directed that the affidavits must be personally affirmed by the Cabinet Secretary of India, Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, and the Chairman of the UGC, without any delegation.

The matter is slated for further hearing on January 8, 2026 when the Court is likely to examine the disclosures in detail.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Mohd Fuzail Khan and Shisba Chawla.

The respondents were represented by advocates Amitesh Kumar, Priti Kumari, Pankaj Kumar Ray, Abhinav Singh, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Parmanand Gaur, Vibhav Mishra and Megha Gaur.

SC castigates NMC on stipend issue

SC castigates NMC on stipend issue 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 04.11.2025

With National Medical Commission (NMC) failing to ensure that all private medical colleges and deemed universities pay stipend to MBBS interns, Supreme Court (SC) directed the Union health secretary to ensure that NMC collects details of charges imposed by these institutions and the stipend they pay. SC, in an order last week, said

it expected the commission “to wake up from slumber” and directed it to file a comprehensive compliance affidavit within two weeks. Over two years after SC said non-payment of stipend to MBBS interns was akin to bonded labour, not only has NMC failed to ensure payment, it has failed to even produce a list of medical colleges with details of how much they paid as stipend or penalise colleges not paying stipend, as it has been threatening to do. I

n July, NMC had issued a public notice directing colleges to submit the complete course-wise fee structure and details of stipend payment to MBBS interns/junior residents/senior residents etc, tuition fees, hostel charges, caution deposits and all miscellaneous charges. NMC had threatened to act against the colleges, including issuing show-cause notices, imposing financial penalties, withdrawing course recognition and suspending admissions, if they failed to comply. 

A few days before the July 11 public notice, NMC had issued another notice, pushing the onus of addressing grievances of medical students onto colleges, universities and directorates of medical education at the state level. Before the sudden move to shift responsibility and the U-turn soon after, NMC had issued notices to colleges thrice in 2024, threatening action. However, with no action being taken, colleges clearly have not taken the threats seriously. SC observed that NMC “seems to be dragging its feet without having any serious concern.”

Law Colleges Can’t Bar Students From Exams Over Attendance Shortage:

Law Colleges Can’t Bar Students From Exams Over Attendance Shortage: HC 9 Yrs After Death By Suicide Of Student, Court Says Norms Can’t Be So Stringent 

Abhinav.Garg@timesofindia.com  04.11.2025

New Delhi : Nine years after an Amity Law School student died by suicide after being barred from taking semester exams because of attendance shortage, Delhi High Court ruled that no law college or university can stop students from sitting for tests on this ground. Referring to the death of Sushant Rohilla and the "stark realities that have come to the surface," a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma said it was "strongly of the view that attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent” that it causes mental trauma and death. 

It directed the Bar Council of India to re-evaluate the mandatory attendance norms and also ordered long-term reforms on mental well-being. "Sushant Rohilla has now left a permanent and indelible mark in the legal education space," the bench said, disposing of a suo motu petition by Supreme Court that was transferred to the high court. 

Rohilla, a third-year student, was allegedly barred from sitting for the semester exams because he did not have the requisite attendance. He left behind a note that said he felt like a failure and did not wish to live. Criminal proceedings against Amity Law School by Rohilla's family ended last year when both parties signed an out-of-court settlement. In its 122-page order, the high court passed a series of directions for law institutes. "... No student enrolled in any recognised law college, university, or institution in India shall be detained from taking examinations or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance," it said. 

No law college, university or institution should be permitted to set attendance norms over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI, the bench added. It also directed all BCI-recognised law colleges and universities to implement measures, such as a weekly notification of attendance of students on an online portal or a mobile app, monthly notice to guardians on attendance shortage, and extra physical or online classes for students who do not fulfil the minimum attendance norms. 

"If at the end of a semester, a student still does not qualify the prescribed attendance norms, the college or university cannot bar the student from taking the examination," the court said. Lack of attendance can be penalised by reducing the grade in the final result, it said. 

The court said even if attendance was not the only factor in Rohilla’s death, but just a contributing factor, still the loss of the life of a young boy could not have come at the behest of such norms. "There are several other cases of suicide by students over the years which have been connected to mandatory attendance requirements, mental health crises arising from the pressure to meet such requirements, and other related issues," the court said.

Honest public servants should be protected from ‘unwarranted frivolous prosecution’, says court

Honest public servants should be protected from ‘unwarranted frivolous prosecution’, says court

COURTS STRESS ON SHIELD FOR THE HONEST, CENSURE FLAWED  PROBES

 Vineet.Upadhyay@timesofindia.com 07.10.2025

New Delhi : Observing that courts must protect honest public servants from “unwarranted frivolous prosecution”, a court acquitted one Ashutosh Vasant, a former director of a PSU, in a corruption case. There are officers who give their life and soul to build the institutions they work for, and therefore, such a lopsided approach needs to be discouraged, Special Judge Sunena Sharma stated on Sept 25. 

The court said it appeared that CBI wanted us to see a ghost where there was none and Vasant, when he was at the peak of his career, fell prey to unfulfilled ambitions of some of his disgruntled colleagues who started considering him as a stumbling block to their career ambitions. “Though the case is ending up in acquittal, the damage suffered by the accused on account of the allegations raised in this case is enormous, and unfortunately, in this entire process, the career of the accused got stalled, jeopardised and ruined,” said the court. In 2019, CBI booked Railtel director Vasant and two firms for alleged misconduct in officials’ travel to the United States in 2012. Railtel, a public sector company, runs a nationwide broadband, telecom, and multimedia network to modernise train control operation and safety systems of Indian Railways. According to the prosecution, Vasant travelled by economy class and raised a bill for business class. He allegedly did not produce any journey documents to hide the cheating committed by him in the purchase of tickets. 

The prosecution alleged that on the recommendation of Vasant and two other officials, Railtel selected the consortium of two companies—United Telecom Limited and Infinera — which were alleged to be non-compliant vendors, for the tender of dense wave division multiplexing technology. The judge did not find any cogent or credible evidence on record to support the prosecution case that the accused received Rs 2,06,500 in cash as wrongful gain or pecuniary advantage from a travel agency as a refund of the residual amount of his business class ticket and caused a corresponding loss to the govt exchequer. 

The court said a mere suspicion or an erroneous administrative decision (act or omission) taken in good faith cannot be transformed into a corruption charge in the absence of clear evidence of any pecuniary advantage. Highlighting that undoubtedly, a “zero tolerance” policy against corruption is the need of the hour to uphold ethical governance, the court said any investigation or trial should not start with a preconceived notion that all public servants are corrupt or dishonest

Madras HC refuses to order college to readmit student held in drug case

Madras HC refuses to order college to readmit student held in drug case

The orders were passed recently on a petition filed by P Pradeep, a third year LLB student of the Central Law College, Salem.

He was arrested in a criminal case registered under NDPS Act, 1985, on September 10, 2024, and was released on bail on October 14, 2024.

Express News Service

Updated on:

30 Sep 2025, 8:22 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to order a private law college to readmit a student who was dismissed after being arrested in a drug case. However, the court quashed the termination order, as it was passed without issuing notice to the student before taking the decision to dismiss him, and directed the college to initiate fresh proceedings.

The orders were passed recently on a petition filed by P Pradeep, a third year LLB student of the Central Law College, Salem. He was arrested in a criminal case registered under NDPS Act, 1985, on September 10, 2024, and was released on bail on October 14, 2024.

The college administration passed an order on December 2, 2024, dismissing him from the college and sent his transfer certificate and other original certificates to him.

Pradeep filed a plea against the dismissal and contended that he was not issued notice before deciding to dismiss him; and this amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. He prayed for the court to quash the order and direct the college to readmit him.

Justice Kumarappan observed that the principles of natural justice were not followed and so quashed the impugned order. He directed the college to pass a fresh order after following due procedures in four weeks. Until final decision is taken, the petitioner is not entitled to enter the college except for inquiry, the order said.

Kalol college regains 150 MBBS seats after conditional approval

Kalol college regains 150 MBBS seats after conditional approval 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 27.09.2025

Ahmedabad : The Swaminarayan Medical College in Kalol, which recently faced cancellation of its admissions, has been granted conditional approval for 150 MBBS seats. The move comes after the National Medical Commission (NMC) earlier declared seats at several medical colleges across the country, including the Kalol college, as “zero”, citing serious deficiencies. The college management had challenged NMC’s decision in court. After hearing the matter, the court directed reconsideration of the case, paving the way for temporary relief. 

Acting on the directions, authorities have now restored 150 MBBS seats to the institute, but only on strict conditions. According to officials, the NMC inspection flagged multiple shortcomings in infrastructure, faculty strength and clinical facilities at the Kalol-based institute. The conditional approval requires the management to rectify all deficiencies within the next three months. Failure to comply with the stipulated timeline could once again put the college’s recognition at risk. This decision has provided relief to hundreds of aspiring medical students, as the sudden withdrawal of recognition left their future uncertain. With approval restored, the admission process at Swaminarayan Medical College can proceed for the new academic session.

HC: Conduct add’l mop-up counselling for NEET-SS

HC: Conduct add’l mop-up counselling for NEET-SS 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK  19.09.2025

Chennai : Madras high court has directed the director general of health services and the medical counselling committee to conduct additional mopup counselling for NEET-SS 2024-25 to include the unfilled super-specialty seats in Tamil Nadu and complete the process within four weeks. 

Justice G K Ilanthiriayan issued the order following a plea by three PG doctors who wanted to pursue super-specialty courses of their choice but were denied due to the nonconduct of mop-up counselling. Representing the petitioners, senior advocate P H Arvindh Pandian submitted that the failure of the counselling committee to conduct mop-up counselling for NEET-SS 202425 has left a large number of super-specialty seats vacant, despite there being willing, eligible, and meritorious candidates available to fill them. 

The denial of a mop-up counselling round results in the arbitrary and unjustified non-utilization of valuable public and private medical education resources, particularly in high-demand specialties and prestigious institutions like the Madras Medical College, Stanley Medical College, and Madurai Medical College.

 “The authorities are under a statutory and administrative obligation under the PG Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2019, to conduct counselling for all super specialty seats in a manner that ensures maximum seat utilization. The current approach defeats this objective,” he added.

Employed wife also entitled to maintenance: HC

Employed wife also entitled to maintenance: HC 

Abhinav.Garg@timesofindia.com  12.09.2025

New Delhi : Noting that a highly qualified, gainfully employed wife is also entitled to maintenance if she enjoyed a better standard of life in the matrimonial home, Delhi HC has enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs 35,000 fixed by the family court for the estranged couple’s child to Rs 1.5 lakh for the wife and the child. “Her financial self-sufficiency must be assessed not in absolute terms but relative to the standard of living maintained during the marriage... maintenance must be calibrated in a manner that allows both parties, especially the financially weaker spouse, to live with dignity, particularly when the respondent (husband’s) income is almost 10-fold,” a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed in a verdict Wednesday. 

The wife is a DU assistant professor earning over Rs 1.2 lakh per month while her husband is a senior data scientist with an MNC drawing an annual income exceeding Rs 1 crore, with benefits like RSUs, stock options and international travel allowances, HC noted. “Despite her employment, her income doesn’t sufficiently meet the demands of sustaining the standard of living she and the child were accustomed to prior to the separation. 

It is evident while the appellant earns an income, it is not comparable to the scale and diversity of the respondent’s earnings,” the bench said. Faulting the family court for focusing only on the wife’s qualification and employment, HC noted though she is earning, “her income is insufficient to support her own needs and those of the minor child”. “She is residing with her parents, which cannot continue indefinitely, and her limited earnings compel her to remain dependent on them. With such resources, she is unable to maintain a reasonable standard of living,” it said, adding the husband’s “substantially higher income makes him financially capable of providing adequate maintenance”.

HC Quashes MBBS Student's Suspension In NEET Malpractice Case, Says NMC Can Act Post-Trial If Guilty

HC Quashes MBBS Student's Suspension In NEET Malpractice Case, Says NMC Can Act Post-Trial If Guilty 

Written By Barsha MisraPublished On 26 Aug 2025 3:22 PM 

Madras High Court

Chennai: Granting relief to an MBBS student, who was suspended after being framed with charges of malpractice in the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 examination, the Madras High Court recently allowed him to attend classes and appear in the examinations.

The HC bench, comprising Justice C. Kumarappan, opined that suspending a student while the trial is pending would affect his right to pursue studies and jeopardise his future.

However, the bench made it clear that if the petitioner is ultimately held guilty in the trial, the National Medical Commission (NMC) can take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, which may include cancellation of his admission to the medical course.

The petitioner is currently pursuing an MBBS course at the Government Thiruvarur Medical College. He was issued with a suspension order on 15.04.2025 by the Dean of the medical college, allegedly without being given any opportunity of hearing on the grounds that he was framed with the charges of malpractice in the NEET UG 2024 examination. He is currently on bail granted by the Patna High Court.

It was argued by the petitioner's counsel that since the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, the Dean had issued the suspension order based on the letter issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC).

Further, the petitioner's counsel submitted that if the petitioner, who was granted bail, was not allowed to attend classes, it would prejudice his education and would affect his eligibility to participate in the examinations. Further, the petitioner's counsel claimed that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated in the criminal case.

The petitioner's counsel relied on a judgment from the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vikas Vishnoi vs. Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan University of Health Science, Jaipur and Others, where the Court had allowed an accused to continue his MBBS courses subject to certain conditions.

On the other hand, the counsel for NMC and the counsel for DMER, and the Dean and Vice Principal of Government Thiruvarur Medical College strongly objected to these contentions and submitted that the petitioner was arrested on serious allegations of malpractice in the NEET UG 2024 examination and an investigation was currently in progress by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

They further submitted that the petitioner was suspended based on NMC's recommendations and the question of reviving the suspension order would not arise at all, since the conduct of the petitioner was not only unethical but also unbecoming of a student.

After taking note of the submissions, the HC bench opined,

"...this Court is of the considered opinion that as rightly held by the Rajasthan High Court, suspending the petitioner, who is a student, while the trial is pending would affect the petitioner's right to pursue his studies and would jeopardize his future. Moreover, if the petitioner is ultimately acquitted, he would suffer the irreversible and irreparable loss of precious years of his studies." "The petitioner being a student, this Court would like to have a soft approach, though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Therefore, suspending the petitioner from College would effectively presume the petitioner guilty and amount to punishment before a final determination by the Competent Court," it observed. Accordingly, the bench granted the following relief:

(1) The petitioner's suspension order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the 5 th respondent-college is hereby quashed. The suspension is treated as quashed from the date of this order. The respondent college shall forthwith allow the petitioner to attend classes.

(2) If the petitioner fulfills the requisite attendance criteria, he shall be allowed to appear in the ensuing examination in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be allowed to complete the course, but the respondents shall not issue him a degree or register him unless the trial is concluded and he is acquitted of the charges.

(3) If the petitioner is held guilty in the trial, the National Medical Commission (NMC) shall be free to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, which may include cancellation of his admission to the medical course. It is needless to state that if the petitioner is acquitted, he shall be issued a degree as soon as he is acquitted.

Can SC/ST Community Status Of Govt Employee Be Verified After Retirement? Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict

Can SC/ST Community Status Of Govt Employee Be Verified After Retirement? 

Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict 

Upasana Sajeev 13 Aug 2025 5:00 PM

The Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on whether the community status of a government employee can be verified/scrutinised after their retirement.

While Justice Nisha Banu opined that reopening the verification of a community certificate would amount to re-litigation, Justice M Jothiraman opined that once a verification starts, it should continue till its conclusion.

Since contradictory views have been taken by the judges, the Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action.

Also Read - Recreational Clubs Selling Liquor Becoming 'Nuisance', Govt Allowing It Because Owners Are Influential/ Politicians: Madras High Court The court was hearing two writ petitions filed by M Gunasekaran and G Thangavel seeking to restrain the SC/ST Vigilance Cell from conducting verification of their respective caste status. In both cases, the persons were issued notices calling upon them to appear for an enquiry in connection with the verification of their community certificate, years after their retirement.

The petitioners submitted that the High Court had consistently taken a view that after the retirement of an employee, the process of verification would be academic and had restrained the committee/verifying authority from proceeding further.

Also Read - Wife Holding Immovable Properties & Substantial Income Does Not Need Interim Maintenance To Live Comfortably: Madras High Court The petitioners submitted that they had not been summoned for more than 40 years for verification and had even attained superannuation. It was thus submitted that the authorities should be refrained from conducting verification. The petitioners also filed an affidavit undertaking that they would not make any claim or concession based on their community certificate.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader submitted that the summons and show cause notice have been issued to the petitioners for only appearing before the authority to submit an explanation along with proof of documents, and no adverse orders had been made. The court was also informed that the authorities were taking steps to verify the genuineness of the community certificate following an order of the Supreme Court.

Justice Nisha Banu noted that in a previous order, the court had held that the action of the authorities in initiating vigilance enquiry after superannuation was not sustainable.

In the present cases, the court noted that the authorities had taken up the verification 4 years and 7 years respectively after the retirement, which was uncalled for. The judge observed that the inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in initiating the enquiry was highly unreasonable and could not be justified under any acceptable standard of prompt administrative action.

The judge also took into account an Office Memorandum placed before the Supreme Court by the Joint Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat, which specified that only community certificates of employees inducted into Government Service after 1995 could be subjected to scrutiny/verification. The judge also noted that as per the Government Order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu which specified the functions of a Vigilance Cell, the inquiry should be completed within a period not exceeding two months.

“Once a government servant has retired and completed all service verifications during his tenure, reopening of the community certificate issue amounts to re-litigation. It is pertinent to note that the employer accepted the community certificates at the time of appointment of the petitioners and did not raise any issue during the long years of service of the petitioners. A retired employee has a legitimate expectation that benefits earned during service will not be taken away arbitrarily after retirement. When a community certificate is issued and accepted for decades, and no concerns are raised, then there is a presumption that such certificates are valid and the information contained within it are accurate,” the judge observed. Thus, considering all the factors, Justice Nisha Banu opined that the authorities could not keep the matter pending for months/years together in the garb of verification of community certificates, especially when a time limit had been fixed for completing the verification. She was thus inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings initiated by the authorities.

Justice Jothiraman's observation

Justice Jothiraman took a different view and noted that once a verification is started, it shall continue till its conclusion. He added that mere undertaking affidavits filed by the petitioners were not sustainable under law, and could not be accepted to close the verification process.

“I am of the view that verification once started shall continue till its conclusion and mere acceptance of undertaking affidavits filed by the petitioners for restraining the authorities is not sustainable under law when the authorities are empowered to issue the impugned notices calling upon the petitioners for enquiry to verify the genuineness of their community certificates in order to ensure implementation of constitutional reservation benefits to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and therefore, the same cannot be quashed at this stage. There is no merits in these petitions and the same is liable to be dismissed,” the judge said. The judge also highlighted the order of the Supreme Court in which the court had opined that there was a huge racket in Tamil Nadu for issuing community certificate and had directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to conduct an extensive enquiry into the same and file a report.

Considering the observations made by the Supreme Court, the judge opined that the verification of the community certificate could not be quashed at this stage. Thus, the judge found no merits in the plea and was inclined to dismiss the same.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Vijay Shankar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Vadivel Deenadayalan Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor

Case Title: M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275

Case No: W.P.No.24381 of 2025

Shortfall In Service, Excess Pension Paid Due To Factual Errors; Madras HC Upholds Recovery After Retirement

Shortfall In Service, Excess Pension Paid Due To Factual Errors; Madras HC Upholds Recovery After Retirement

Namdev Singh 23 July 2025 11:18 AM

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that excess pension paid due to a clerical or mechanical mistake in pay fixation to the factually ineligible employee can be recovered post-retirement. Further the protection against recovery laid down in Rafiq Masih case does not apply when eligibility itself is lacking.

Background Facts

The petitioner was employed as a Lecturer (Selection Grade) at Arulmigu Palaniandavar College of Arts and Culture, Palani. It was an aided private institution governed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. After his retirement, he was granted pension based on the UGC scale applicable to Lecturers in Selection Grade with three years of service.

However, upon audit it was found that the petitioner had rendered only 2 years and 7 months of service in the Selection Grade. He was falling short of the required 3 years. It was held that he had been wrongly granted a higher pension. Therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Treasury Officer through proceedings dated 19.07.2016.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the recovery proceedings were initiated without affording any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that neither at the stage of audit nor at the time of revising the pensionary benefits was any communication issued to the petitioner, nor was a copy of the audit objection furnished, depriving him of the chance to offer an explanation or clarification regarding the alleged excess payment.

The petitioner further relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, to submit that recovery of excess amounts from retired employees, particularly when no fraud or misrepresentation is attributed to them, would be arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It was also submitted that G.O.(Ms.) No.286 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 28.08.2018 issued by the State Government discourages recovery in cases of bona fide mistake after retirement.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to receive the higher pension granted under the UGC scales, as he had not completed the minimum required service of three years in the Selection Grade. It was submitted that the petitioner had served only 2 years and 7 months in that post. It was contended that the pension was wrongly calculated as if the petitioner belonged to the category of “Lecturer Selection Grade with three years and above”, which was factually incorrect. It was submitted that this was not a matter of interpretation but a question of eligibility, and that the recovery initiated upon audit was legally sound and justified.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the mistake in pay fixation was purely mechanical. The Court held that the petitioner had served only 2 years and 7 months in the Selection Grade and thus was factually ineligible for the pension. The error was not interpretational but an objectively verifiable shortfall in qualifying service, therefore, there was no need for subjective assessment. It was further observed that the absence of prior notice amounted to procedural irregularity but it did not cause any real prejudice to the petitioner. It was observed by the court that since the pension was erroneously fixed based on inapplicable criteria, the petitioner was not entitled to the higher benefits granted to him.

The case was distinguished by the court from decisions in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih and State of Kerala vs Thomas Daniel, where the Supreme Court had restrained recovery on the ground of injustice or hardship to retired employees. It restrained particularly in cases which involved long-standing payments and no fault of the employee. However, in this case the core issue was of eligibility, and not hardship or equitable considerations.

Further the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand was relied upon wherein the Supreme Court held that public funds wrongly paid due to bona fide mistake and without fraud must be recovered. Further allowing the recipient to retain such funds from government exchequer would amount to unjust enrichment. It was held that any amount paid without authority of law is recoverable, unless exceptional hardship is there.

It was held by the Court that the petitioner was not legally entitled to the higher pension, therefore the recovery initiated by the department was justified.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name: P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251

Case No.: W.P.(MD) No.14857 of 2016

Counsel for the Petitioner: M. Saravanan

Counsel for the Respondents: T. Amjad Khan, Government Advocate, K. Govindarajan, P. Aathimoola Pandian

‘One of the worst orders’: In a 1st, SC bars Alld HC judge from hearing criminal cases

‘One of the worst orders’: In a 1st, SC bars Alld HC judge from hearing criminal cases 

AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesofindia.com 06.08.2025

New Delhi : Enraged by what it termed “one of the worst and most erroneous orders we have come across”, Supreme Court has pulled up Allahabad high court’s Justice Prashant Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. Questioning Kumar’s competence in deciding criminal cases, SC, in an unprecedented order, directed he shouldn’t be not given any criminal case for adjudication till he retires, and must be made to sit with a seasoned judge of the high court in a division bench. 

“The judge has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits’ end to understand what’s wrong with judiciary at the level of the high court,” Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said. 

 Erroneous orders,  SC: Passing of such absurd & erroneous orders unpardonable SC said at times “we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is unpardonable”. It said the erroneous order was not an exception as Justice Kumar had passed similarly unpardonable ones over a period of time, which left them with no option but to take the extreme step. 

The case pertains to sale of goods and payment between two businessmen. The seller had  delivered goods worth Rs 52.34 lakh out of which he was paid Rs 47.75 lakh. As the balance amount was not paid, he lodged a criminal case, leading to the other businessman to move HC for quashing the case. While allowing criminal proceedings in the case, a single bench of Justice Kumar justified his decision, saying that the complainant would not be in a position to pursue the civil litigation as it will take years and he will have to put more money to pursue the litigation. “To be more precise, it would seem like good money chasing bad money. If this court allows the matter to be referred to civil court on account of civil dispute between the parties, it would amount to travesty of justice and O.P. no.2 (complainant) would suffer irreparable loss and he might even not be in aposition to emerge from the financial constraints to pursue the matter,” he had said. Expressing shock over the stand taken by the judgethe SC bench said, “Is it the understanding of the high court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? 

The observations recorded... are shocking. It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations... It was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. “It was expected of the HC to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the HC has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit,” it said. The bench quashed the order and directed that the case be reconsidered by the HC but by another judge. “The chief justice of the high court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the judge concerned. The chief justice shall make the judge concerned sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge of the HC. We further direct that the judge concerned shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at allhe is to be made to sit as asingle judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination,” the apex court said. 

06/08/2025, 07:40 Times of India ePaper lucknow - Read Today’s English News Paper Online https://epaper.indiatimes.com/timesepaper/publication-the-times-of-india,city-lucknow.cms 2/3 06/08/2025, 07:40 Times of India eP

HC stays admission & recognitions to paramedical colleges in MP

HC stays admission & recognitions to paramedical colleges in MP 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

17.07.2025

Bhopal/Jabalpur : In a significant move, a division bench of MP high court has stayed the process of admission and recognition to paramedical colleges of Madhya Pradesh. A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Deepak Khot said it was ironic that courses in paramedical colleges have begun even before they are accorded recognition. Vishal Baghel, the petitioner who filed the public interest litigation (PIL) in the MP high court, alleged gross irregularities in granting recognition to nursing colleges in MP (popularly known as nursing college scam) had moved an application last Thursday alleging that a similar situation prevails in recognitions to paramedical colleges in the state.

HC expresses surprise over affairs in nursing, paramedical councils in state

HC expresses surprise over affairs in nursing, paramedical councils in state 

17.07.2025

The MP Paramedical Council is granting recognition to paramedical colleges with retrospective effect for the academic session 2023-24 and 2024-25. Both the govt and private paramedical colleges accorded recognition by MP Medical Science University are admitting students in violation of rules, he prayed in his submission. 

During hearing of the case on Wednesday, the division bench was told that though academic sessions 2023-24 and 2024-25 have ended, yet 150 paramedical colleges have been accorded permission to admit students for these sessions in 2025. The state govt had scrapped the Central Paramedical Council but later it was reinstated through a cabinet decision. The court, expressing surprise over the affairs in institutions like MP Nursing Registration Council and MP Paramedical Council observed, “Who is making these policies? 

There is something seriously wrong here that even before recognition is granted, you are saying the course is on. This is what we call insanity. This is trying to find out ‘method in madness’. We are staying this.” The case will now come up for hearing on July 24. TNN

Pvt medical colleges to pay govt PGs stipend only

Pvt medical colleges to pay govt PGs stipend only 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 16.07.2025

Chennai : Madras high court has clarified that private self financing medical colleges are required to pay only a stipend, and not a full salary, to in-service govt doctors pursuing postgraduate or super-specialty courses under the govt quota. 

A division bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Surender passed the order while partly allowing a batch of appeals moved by Karpaga Vinayaga Medical College and others. They challenged a single judge's order that directed private colleges to pay salaries to in-service doctors studying in their institutions. 

The appeals were moved based on a GO dated Feb 7, 2020, which permits salary payments only to in-service doctors studying in govt medical colleges, including Raja Muthiah Medical College (a govt-acquired institution), and denies the same to those studying in private colleges. 

The institutions argued that they should not be compelled to pay full salaries, as the inservice doctors were not employees of the private institutions. They cited Regulation 13.3 of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, which mandates payment of a stipend on par with govt medical colleges but does not refer to salary. Concurring with the submissions, the judges said private colleges are liable to pay only the stipend fixed by the state govt for postgraduate medical students and not the full salary that govt-employed doctors receive while studying in govt institutions. 

“Inservice doctors in private colleges do not retain employee status with those institutions and are to be treated as students,” the bench said.

No maintenance for wife living apart without reason: HC

No maintenance for wife living apart without reason: HC 

Rajesh Kumar Pandey TNN  13.07.2025

Prayagraj : A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she resides separately from her husband without valid reasons, Allahabad high court has held, setting aside a family court’s order. 

The HC’s Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma allowed a revision petition by Vipul Agarwal against a Feb 2025 order by afamily court in Meerut. “The trial court (family court) has recorded the finding that the wife failed to prove she had sufficient reasons for living separately from her husband or that he was neglecting to maintain her, even though the amount of maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife as Rs 5,000 per month. As per Section 125(4) of criminal procedure code (CrPC), if the wife is living separately from the husband without sufficient reasons, she is not entitled to maintenance,” Justice Sharma said in his July 8 order. 

Agarwal’s counsel argued that despite the trial court’s finding of the wife living separately without sufficient reason, it erroneously awarded her Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance without considering the earning capacity of the husband. The family court had fixed Rs 5000 for Agarwal’s wife and Rs 3000 per month for their minor child. The counsel pointed out that Agarwal continued to pay Rs 3000 to his wife and Rs 2000 per month to their child. 

The counsel for the wife and state countered by saying she lived separately due to the husband’s neglect, justifying the trial court’s decision to grant maintenance. They argued that the trial court’s finding might be a clerical error and shouldn’t render the entire order illegal or erroneous. But Justice Sharma concluded that the family court’s findings about the wife and the maintenance order were contradictory and in violation of Section 125(4) CrPC, requiring “interference by this court (HC)”. 

Accordingly, the High ourt set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the family court to decide the case afresh after hearing both parties. In the meantime, the HC directed Agarwal to continue paying Rs 5,000 as interim maintenance.