Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Pranav Kumar

26 Mar 2025 12:16 PM

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the compulsory retirement of a Railway employee. As the only misconduct was unauthorized absence for three days during the pandemic, the court found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate. The court directed his immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and ruled that his absence should be treated as casual leave in accordance with government COVID-related office memorandums.

Also Read - Employer Withholding Best Evidence, Grounds To Draw Adverse Inference In Favor Of Employee: Calcutta HC

Background

Nitheesh K., employed as Technician-III under the Railways, took medical emergency leave from 16th to 18th March 2020 to visit his native place in Kerala. He subsequently requested and was granted leave extension from 19 to 21 March. On 22nd March, the government declared a general curfew to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a nationwide lockdown that continued until 2nd June 2020.

Also Read - Dismissal Is Last Resort; Disciplinary Authorities Must Consider Lesser Penalties Before Extreme Punishment: Chhattisgarh HC

During the lockdown period, Nitheesh remained at his native place. Eventually, on 31st July, he obtained a travel pass and reported for duty. Upon arrival, he sought regularization of his leave during the period of absence. He cited government circulars regarding the special casual leave considering COVID pandemic. The Railways rejected this request and issued a charge sheet alleging unauthorized absence from March to August 2020. Consequently, Nitheesh was penalised with compulsory retirement.

Also Read - Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court

He challenged this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which found that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate. The CAT directed the Union to consider imposing a lesser punishment. Consequently, the Railways demoted him to Assistant (Workshop) Grade with pay fixed at Rs.18,000/- for 48 months. Aggrieved, Nitheesh approached the High Court.

Arguments

Also Read - Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC

Nitheesh argued that the punishment was disproportionate considering the COVID-19 pandemic. He pointed out that the workshop remained closed from 20.03.2020 to 02.06.2020, and his extended leave was only until 21.03.2020. He submitted that not being able to explain three days of absence (22nd to 24th March 2020) could not justify such severe punishment. He also submitted that similarly situated employees were granted exemptions or received lesser punishments for unexplained long absences.

The Union of India argued that unexplained absence of a government employee constitutes serious indiscipline that cannot be pardoned. While conceding that compulsory retirement might not be justified (as per the Tribunal's order), they maintained that the subsequent penalty of reduction in pay grade was appropriate.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the Court noted that Nitheesh was on sanctioned leave until 21.03.2020, and there was an undisputed nationwide lockdown beginning on 24.03.2020. The workshop too was closed from 20.03.2020 to 02.06.2020. In these circumstances, the Court found compulsory retirement to be disproportionate and a “wholly unjustified” punishment.

Secondly, the Court observed that the revised punishment amounted to withholding increments with cumulative effect, as it effectively takes away valuable service benefits for almost seven years. The court ruled that this too was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Thirdly, the Court highlighted that Nitheesh had demonstrated his commitment by traveling 400 km during the pandemic to report for duty, after which he was advised to undergo quarantine for 14 days. The Court concluded that there was “hardly any willful absence” on Nitheesh's part that could justify such severe punishment.

Thus, the Court set aside both the compulsory retirement order and the revised punishment order. As per the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2020, the court directed the Union to treat Nitheesh's unauthorised absence for three days as casual leave. Consequently, the court ordered his reinstatement with all benefits within one month.

Decided on: 25.02.2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:16819 | Nitheesh K. v. Union of India

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Martin G. Thottan and Mr. Varghese John

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. R.V. Sreejith

'For 20 Yrs He Was Sleeping': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Govt Employee's Plea Against 2002 Penalty Stopping Yearly Increments

'For 20 Yrs He Was Sleeping': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Govt Employee's Plea Against 2002 Penalty Stopping Yearly Increments

Nupur Agrawal

25 Mar 2025 12:15 PM



Dismissing a government employee's plea challenging a penalty which stopped three annual grade increments as well as rejection of appeal and review petitions, the Rajasthan High Court observed that his plea was barred by delay of over two decades.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said,

"It appears that the petitioner was sleeping over the matter for more than two decades and all of sudden, he woke up after twenty years and approached this Court without giving any plausible explanation in the instant writ petition about the aforesaid inordinate delay".

Also Read - Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Lacks Jurisdiction To Issue Reassessment Notices U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments in 2002 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. An appeal as well as a review petition were filed against this 2002 order imposing penalty, but these were rejected in 2003 and 2004 respectively.

He then approached the high court in 2024 filing a petition challenging the original order imposing penalty as well as rejection of the appeal and the review petition against that order.

Also Read - IPR Violation Affects Public Interest, Courts Should Be Prompt In Granting Interim Injunction: Rajasthan High Court

The Court highlighted the settled position of law by making a reference to many Supreme Court decisions.

In the cases of New Delhi Municipal Council v Pan Singh and Others, as well as State of Uttaranchal and another v Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others it was held that irrespective of there being no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226, ordinarily it should be filed within a reasonable period. It was further held that relief to someone who put forth a stale claim could be refused on account of delay and laches because anyone sleeping over his rights was bound to suffer.

Also Read - Rajasthan HC Orders Woman's Appointment As Clerk Denied For Taking Back Original Documents In Bonafide Belief That Selection Process Is Over

Similarly, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v T.T.Murali Babu, it was held that,

“The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity… Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant “a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.”

Also Read - Eligibility Should Be Checked At Threshold, Not After Selection: Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Asha Worker Denied Post Despite Selection

In this background, the high court observed that the petitioner approached the court after a delay of almost 20 years without any satisfactory explanation for laches and delay, and law had already set its face against such indolent litigants.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Sudershan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

Government Employee Dying A Day Before 60th Birthday Is Deemed Under 60, Dependent Eligible For Compassionate Appointment : Calcutta HC

Government Employee Dying A Day Before 60th Birthday Is Deemed Under 60, Dependent Eligible For Compassionate Appointment : Calcutta HC

Namdev Singh

25 Mar 2025 1:15 PM




The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that a government employee is deemed not to have completed 60 years of age if they die one day before their 60th birthday, therefore making their dependent eligible for compassionate appointment.

Background Facts

The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in a secondary school after death of his father. The date of birth of father was 2nd January, 1961. He turned sixty on January 1, 2021, the same day he passed away. The respondent refused the prayer of the petitioner. The reason assigned by the respondent in the memo dated 5th February, 2024 was attainment of age of sixty years by father of the petitioner on 1st January, 2021 when he died.

Also Read - Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court


The respondent decided on the basis of Schedule V of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 (Rules of 2009), that father of the petitioner attained sixty years on the date of his death, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to get benefit of appointment on compassionate ground.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing the memo dated 5th February, 2024 issued by the Assistant Secretary, West Bengal Regional School Service Commission.

Also Read - Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC

It was contended by the petitioner that since date of birth of father of the petitioner was 2nd January, 1961 therefore, father of the petitioner did not complete sixty years on 1st January, 2021. He would have completed sixty years on 2nd January, 2021. It was further argued that, despite the petitioner's father's date of superannuation, the petitioner should have been considered an eligible candidate for appointment on compassionate grounds. It was stated that there was one day short to complete age of 60 years on the date of death, which makes the petitioner entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

Also Read - Part-Time Teachers In Night Junior Colleges Not Entitled To Pensionary Benefits Under MEPS Rules: Bombay HC

Further petitioner relied on Rules 18 and 20 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016. As per Rule 18, the superannuation date of father of the petitioner was 31st January, 2021. It was further submitted that Rule 20 states the financial hardship of family of deceased teacher and definition of family are to be taken into consideration in terms of Schedule V of the Rules of 2009.

Also Read - KWA Service | Once Appointed As Assistant Engineer, Right To Opt For Degree Or Diploma Quota For Promotion Remains Open: Supreme Court

On the other hand it was contended by the respondent that Rules of 2016 was not applicable but Schedule V of Rules of 2009 was applicable while adjudging eligibility of the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground. Clause 1 of Schedule V of the Rules of 2009 states that date of superannuation of father of petitioner was fixed on 31st January, 2021. However, father of the petitioner attained sixty years on 1st January, 2021 which makes the petitioner disentitled in the matter of granting appointment on compassionate ground. According to the respondent authorities, date of birth of father of the petitioner was 2nd January, 1961 and he completed sixty years of age on 1st January, 2021. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

Findings of the Court

The Clause 1 under Schedule V of the Rules of 2009 was relied upon by the court which provides that when a teacher or non-teaching staff dies in harness before the date of his superannuation that is the age of sixty years in that event only one of the family members of the deceased teacher /nonteaching staff is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

It was observed by the court that father of the petitioner was scheduled to retire on 31st January, 2021 but unfortunately, he died on 1st January, 2021 when his age was 59 years 11 months and 29 days. If the father would have died on 2nd January, 2021 it could have been concluded that father completed sixty years of age.

It was further observed that had father of the petitioner died on 2nd January, 2021 then son would have been adjudged being not eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. But in the present case, since father died on the last date when he attained 60th year it cannot be concluded that the father completed sixty years.

Therefore, it was held by the court that there is no bar in considering application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground if father of the petitioner had died on the last date just before completing sixty years of age. Therefore, the memo dated 5th February, 2024 issued by the respondent was set aside by the court.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Name : Sk. Monikul Hossain VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.A. 28275 OF 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Firdous Samim, Gopa Biswas, Sampriti Saha, Swati Dey

Counsel for the Respondents : Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Biman Halder, Sunit Kumar Roy, Saibal Acharyya, Tanweer Jamil Mandal

Although MCI Regulations Allow 30% Of Faculty Positions To Be Reserved For Non-Medical Candidates In Colleges, It Is Not Mandatory: J&K High Court

Although MCI Regulations Allow 30% Of Faculty Positions To Be Reserved For Non-Medical Candidates In Colleges, It Is Not Mandatory: J&K High Court

Aleem Syeed

27 Mar 2025 4:25 PM

Clarifying the rules for recruitment in medical institutes, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines allow for up to 30% of the total appointments in certain departments to be from non-medical faculty, but there is no legal obligation to do so.

Respondent No.1, who was a non-medical candidate, had challenged the appointment on the basis that the institute was under an obligation to appoint 30% from non-medical candidates. The court however said that the contention of Respondent No.1, challenging the appointment of a candidate belonging to the medical category was without any basis.

A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Puneet Gupta made it clear that the rule referred to by Respondent No.1 was not a mandatory provision but discretionary and further observed that even if a medical institute appoints all teachers from the medical category in departments such as Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, and Pharmacology, it cannot be said that the institute has violated the 30% norm laid down in the regulations.

The court noted that the posts in question were advertised in 2016, and by virtue of the said advertisement, both candidates from the medical and non-medical streams could apply. The court said that Respondent No.1 had the lowest score in the merit list, whereas Respondent No.4 had the highest marks and was accordingly selected for the post.

The court observed that in the presence of more meritorious candidates with medical qualifications, the unfilled post could not have been given to Respondent No.1, who was last in the merit list, solely on the basis that he possessed a non-medical qualification.

The court held that the contention of Respondent No.1, requiring the institute to mandatorily fill 30% of the seats from non-medical candidates, was totally misconceived and contrary to the regulations provided by the MCI.

The court ruled that the single bench had earlier operated on the wrong premise that the institute was obligated to fill 30% of posts from the non-medical category in each discipline.

The court also said that it is at the discretion of the medical institution concerned to appoint non-medical faculty in some departments, such as Pharmacology, but while doing so, the institution must ensure that the number of non-medical teachers does not exceed 30% of the total number of posts in the department.

BACKGROUND

The case revolves around the appointment of an Assistant Professor in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at SKIMS, Srinagar. Respondent No.1 applied for the post of Assistant Professor, but Respondent No.4 was appointed to the position. Respondent No.1 challenged the selection process, arguing that SKIMS was obligated to fill 30% of faculty positions in Clinical Pharmacology with non-medical candidates as per Medical Council of India (MCI) norms.

The Single Judge of the High Court, in its judgment, directed SKIMS to reconsider his case for appointment retrospectively, prompting the appellant to file intra-court appeals.

APPEARANCE:

Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Junaid Malik, Advocate for Petitioners

M.Y.Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.A.Bhat, Advocate for R-1

Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Ms. Rahella Khan, Advocate FOR Respondents

Case-title: Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq, 2025

If poor don’t get free treatment at Apollo, will hand it over to AIIMS, warns Supreme Court

If poor don’t get free treatment at Apollo, will hand it over to AIIMS, warns Supreme Court

The Supreme Court asked the Central and Delhi governments to set up a joint inspection team to “find out if poor people are being treated there or this land has been grabbed for private interest”.

By: Express News Service

New Delhi | Updated: March 27, 2025 05:58 IST

The bench also asked them to inform it of the existing total bed strength of the hospital and sought records of OPD patients for the past five years.

The Supreme Court has warned the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital in Delhi that it will ask the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to take over its management if it does not fulfill its commitment in the lease agreement to provide free treatment to poor patients. “If we find out that poor people are not provided free treatment, we will hand over the hospital to AIIMS,” a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh cautioned on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court asked the Central and Delhi governments to set up a joint inspection team to “find out if poor people are being treated there or this land has been grabbed for private interest”.

“Discuss the matter at the highest level, and if need be, we will ask AIIMS to run the hospital,” the court said. The hospital has been given four weeks to submit a report.

Story continues below this ad

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Indraprastha Medical Corporation Limited (IMCL), which runs the hospital, challenging an order dated September 22, 2009, by the Delhi High Court, which said that “there has been hardly any implementation of the conditions of the agreement providing for free treatment to indoor and outdoor patients” as it cited “reports which clearly show that the IMCL has flouted the conditions with impunity”.

As per the agreement establishing the hospital, it was stipulated that it shall provide free facilities of medical diagnostic and other necessary care to not less than 1/3rd of the total capacity of 600 beds and to provide free of cost full medical diagnostic and other necessary facilities to 40% of the patients attending OPD of the hospital.

The All India Lawyers Union had approached the High Court alleging that this was being flouted.

The High Court asked the hospital “to provide one-third of the free beds i.e. 200 beds with adequate space and necessary facilities to the indoor patients and also to make necessary arrangements for free facilities to 40% of the outdoor patients.”

Story continues below this ad

Hearing the appeal against the High Court order on Tuesday, the Supreme Court orally remarked that the hospital — built on 15 acres of land given on a symbolic lease of just Re 1 — was to be run on a ‘no profit and no loss’ formula but has instead turned into a purely commercial venture where the poor can hardly afford treatment.

The IMCL counsel told the bench that it was being run as a joint venture and the government of NCT of Delhi has 26% shareholding and had also benefited from the earnings.

“If the Delhi government is earning profit from the hospital instead of taking care of the poor patients, it is the most unfortunate thing,” Justice Kant said. The Supreme Court noted that the land on which the hospital was built was given on a 30-year lease, which was to expire in 2023, and asked the Centre and Union Health Ministry to find out if the same had been renewed and to explain “if the lease deed has not been renewed, what lawful recourse has been initiated for restoration of government land”.

The bench also asked them to inform it of the existing total bed strength of the hospital and sought records of OPD patients for the past five years.

Story continues below this ad

“The affidavit will explain how many poor patients on the recommendation of the state authorities were provided indoor and outdoor treatment in the last five years,” the court said, allowing the hospital to explain its stand in an affidavit.

© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd

Time Is Precious, Courts Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay When Action Is Time-Barred: Madras High Court

Time Is Precious, Courts Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay When Action Is Time-Barred: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

17 Mar 2025 6:00 PM

The Madras High Court has stressed that courts should be slow to ignore delay once the limitation period for a particular suit expires and the action becomes time-barred.

Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the statute relating to limitation determines the life span of a legal remedy and as time passes, newer causes would come up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy. Remarking that time is precious, the court thus noted that if the life span of legal remedy was not followed, it may lead to unending uncertainty and anarchy.

“The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by Mayalagu challenging an order of the Director of Collegiate Education and to direct the authorities to give him notional promotion as Lab Assistant in VSS Government Arts College with all benefits.

Mayalagu submitted that he was initially appointed as a Sports Marker in the college. When the college intended to fill up the post of Lab Assistant with one post to be filled through direct recruitment and two posts through promotion, Mayalagu was not considered since a disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It was informed that he had been imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

When the same was challenged before the writ court, the court directed the college to appoint Mayalagu as lab assistant pursuant to which he was promoted by proceedings dated May 27, 2013. During the pendency of the petition, his punishment was reduced to a censure. Since censure was not a bar to get promotion, Mayalagu submitted a representation in 2013 asking the authorities to promote him with effect from 2008, the date on which two of the three posts were filled up. This representation was rejected in 2019 following which Mayalagu retired.

The respondents challenged the petition and argued that it was filed belatedly after 2 years of his retirement. It was argued that at the belated stage, granting retrospective notional promotion was not feasible as it had become time-barred.

The court noted that there was no proper and satisfactory explanation for giving a belated representation and for filing the petition 2 years after retirement. Thus, the court opined that the claim could not be sustained on the grounds of laches.

The court added that while it cannot be presumed that a delay in approaching court was always deliberate, it was necessary to show sufficient cause for the delay. The court added that the “sufficient cause” must show that the delay was not deliberate, negligent and due to the casual approach of the litigant but was Bonafide die to reasons beyond the litigant's control.

In the present case, the court was not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the litigant. The court added that the delay remained virtually unexplained and thus, the court was not inclined to exercise judicial discretion to condone the delay. The court observed that after being promoted as Lab Assistant in 2013, the petitioner kept quiet for more than five years without making any request for notional promotion which would show that he had accepted the post.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Suriya Narayanan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. D. Sadiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

Case No: WP(MD) No.6979 of 2021

'Unacceptable': Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Man For Joining VC Hearing From Lavatory

'Unacceptable': Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Man For Joining VC Hearing From Lavatory

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

23 Mar 2025 9:10 AM

The Gujarat High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 Lakh on a man for attending court proceedings through video conferencing from a lavatory and has further asked him to perform community service by cleaning the gardens in the high court premises for two weeks.

In doing so the court rejected the man's contention that he had used the high court's website for the first time and thus committed a mistake noting that the 42-year-old man has a B.Sc. degree, and is working in a company. The court said that it cannot be accepted from the person like him that he was not well versed with the operation of the applications, adding that the "indecent act was not only unacceptable but shameful".

Justice MK Thakker in her order said:

"The video, which was viral and thereafter report was called for from Sola Police Station to trace out the person found in the video it reveals that on 17.02.2025 at 12:20 hours one person joined the link by showing the name as “Kanubhai” and he was in indecent manner, he was disconnected. Again, he joined, as the place from where he joined was a lavatory, he was again disconnected. Thereafter, by showing the number of the matter, namely, CRA 11948/2023 the person joined again. The son of the respondent No.2 is present before the Court, namely, Dhavalbhai Kanubhai Patel is having the educational qualification of B.Sc. aged around 42 years and serving in the Reliance Group. So it cannot be accepted from the person like a present, was not wellverse with the operation of the applications. In such scenario, the indecent act is not only unacceptable but it is a shameful and is required to be strictly condemned. If Courts do not deal with such a person with strong hands then, that may result lowering the dignity of the institution in the eyes of public"

It thus imposed exemplary costs of Rs.2,00,000 on the man to be deposited with the Registry within two weeks. The court further directed him to report to the Special Officer, Dedicated Cell at 10:00a.m. and perform community service by cleaning the gardens of the High Court under the supervision of the officer for two weeks.

"The Special Officer, Dedicated Cell, shall submit a report to the Court regarding the completion of the said service," the court added. It further asked the Registry to submit if a report on deposition of the costs, and said that if costs is not paid then further action will be taken.

The incident had occured during the hearing of a plea moved by Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited challenging a January 21, 2023 labour court order pertaining to a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The court was informed by the counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 that his client's matter was listed on February 17 (Special Civil Application No.11948 of 2023) and therefore on "downloading the board from the High Court website and on clicking on zoom application as well as filling up password" his son had joined the online hearing.

"As it was the first time, he used the website of the High Court, such mistake was committed and therefore, he tendered his unconditional apology," the counsel said.

Meanwhile the Ahmedabad's Sola Police Station had in the previous hearing submitted a report to the court which stated that person who was found in the video, was not the person present in the Court on February 20, who is the petitioner in another petition. The report stated that the person in the video was the son of the respondent No.2 in Special Civil Application No.11948 of 2023.

The court had thus in its previous order had directed the respondent no. 2 as well as his son to be present in personally present in court on the next date of hearing.

Case title: GUJARAT STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED v/s PRESIDENT OFFICER & ANR

Madras High Court Orders Payment Of ₹1 Lakh Cost To Office Assistant Who Was Denied Maternity Leave By Magistrate, Calls It "Inhuman"

Madras High Court Orders Payment Of ₹1 Lakh Cost To Office Assistant Who Was Denied Maternity Leave By Magistrate, Calls It "Inhuman"

Upasana Sajeev

24 Mar 2025 3:12 PM

Criticizing the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal and the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur for denying maternity benefit to an Office Assistant, the Madras High Court has held that when there was no dispute regarding the marriage, the employer should not seek proof beyond reasonable doubt for granting the maternity benefit.

“No doubt, Maternity Leave is granted to married woman. A marriage need not be compulsorily registered. The employer cannot seek proof beyond doubt for the factum of marriage unless it is disputed...The reliance placed on G.O.(Ms) No.84 is also ill conceived. The effect of the said G.O. is only to increase the number of days of maternity leave from 270 days to 365 days. It is the Fundamental Rules which governed grant maternity leave. No doubt, maternity leave can be availed of by a married woman only, but the employer is not expected to seek proof beyond doubt of the factum of marriage,” the court held.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the action of the Magistrate was wholly unwarranted and inhumane. The bench added that when prima facie evidence was available, the Magistrate seemed to have fished for reasons and rejected the maternity leave application. Thus, the court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the woman for the mental agony suffered by her due to the respondents' actions.

“The action of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, to say the least is inhuman. In the days were even live in relationships are recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal, appears to have taken archaic view of the matter and has fished for and found out reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner. This, in our opinion, is wholly unwarranted,” the court directed.

The order was made in a petition filed by B Kavitha, Office Assistant of the Magistrate. Kavitha lost her first husband on January 2020. After this, she fell in love with one Bharathi and married him on April 28, 2024. When Kavitha applied for a maternity leave on October 18, 2024, her application was rejected on mainly three grounds. Firstly, that the marriage was not registered. Secondly, that an FIR lodged against Bharathi for cheating on false promise of marriage could not be treated as proof of marriage and third that the pregnancy was prior to the marriage. Claiming that maternity leave could be claimed only by a married woman, the Magistrate dismissed the petition.

The High Court was not inclined to accept this view. Though the court agreed that maternity leave is granted only to married women, it added that the employer could not seek proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against Bharathi accusing him of having relationship with her on the false promise of marriage which resulted in her pregnancy. Following this, at the instance of family and well-wishers, the couple got married and photos and invitation of the same was also produced. The court noted that the Magistrate should have acted based on the material but had instead gone on to doubt the fact of pregnancy.

Adding that it was time for judicial officers to reform themselves and take a pragmatic view, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the Principal District Judge to grant maternity leave as per entitlement and to treat any leave taken by her as maternity leave.

Finding it a fit case where the petitioner must be "compensated for the mental agony suffered by her due to the unjust return of her application", the court directed the respondent-Registrar General of Madras High Court, to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioner within 4 weeks.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Shivakumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. N. K. Kanthimathi

Case Title: B Kavitha v. The Registrar General

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 116

Case No: W.P.No.6195 of 2025

Car owner liable to pay crash damages if hired driverhas no licence: HC

Car owner liable to pay crash damages if hired driverhas no licence: HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 24.03.2025

Bhopal/Jabalpur : The MP High Court has said that if a driver hired by a person doesn’t have a valid driving licence and dies in an accident, the person hiring him would be liable to pay compensation to his kin rather than the insurance company with which the vehicle is insured. The court ordered the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded to the family of the deceased driver by the labour court for now and subsequently recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

The insurance company in its petition challenged the compensation awarded to the wife of the deceased driver. During the hearing, the court of Justice Vivek Agarwal asked the owner of the vehicle, Srikant Singh, who hired the deceased Shiv Kumar Rawat as a driver, to produce a copy of his driving licence before the court, which he failed to do. The court said that in accident claim cases, it’s for the insurance company to prove that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have been violated. 

In this case, the person who hired deceased Rawat as a driver couldn’t produce a copy of his driving licence to show that he was legally entitled to drive a vehicle. In this situation, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation but the owner of the vehicle himself. Rawat died when the vehicle overturned while it was on the move. The court, while upholding the Labour Court, Rewa, order to award compensation to the wife of the deceased driver, asked the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Advocate Rajesh Kumar Jain appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

No maintenance to wife if her earning is at par with that of husband: Apex court

No maintenance to wife if her earning is at par with that of husband: Apex court 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK  22.03.2025

New Delhi : Noting that a woman who is employed and holding the same post as that of husband and can take care of herself independently, Supreme Court has turned down her plea seeking maintenance from her estranged husband. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to grant relief to the woman who is working as an assistant professor and sought maintenance from her husband. “Both the first petitioner and respondent (husband and wife) are holding the same post of an assistant professor. No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed,” the court said in its brief order. The bench was hearing a plea of the wife seeking maintenance but her plea was opposed by her estranged husband who alleged that she did not need maintenance as she was earning herself. Opposing her plea, advocate Shashank Singh, appearing for the husband, told the court that she was earning around ₹60,000 per month and both of them were holding the post of the same grade. But the wife pleaded that she was entitled for maintenance and the wife’s earning capacity and qualification cannot automatically absolve the husband of his obligation to provide maintenance. She told the bench that her husband was earning around ₹1 lakh per month. As there was dispute over their monthly salaries, the court directed both of them to place before it the salary slip of the last one year. Before passing the order, the bench took into account their monthly income after examining their salary slips of last year.

Magistrate pulled up for denying maternity leave

Magistrate pulled up for denying maternity leave 

21.03.2025

Chennai: Dubbing it as “inhuman”, Madras high court censured a judicial magistrate for denying maternity leave to an office assistant who remarried after the demise of her first husband, on the grounds that there was no proof of her second marriage. 

Kodavasal, the district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate of Thiruvarur, even went to the extent of speculating that the second marriage appeared to have taken place after the pregnancy. Setting aside the order returning the application for maternity leave, a division bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the registrar-general of the HC to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony the woman suffered. 

“It is high time judicial officers reform themselves and take a pragmatic view of things,” HC said, adding, “The action of the judicial officer, to say the least, is inhuman. At a time when even live-in relationships are recognised by the Supreme Court, the judicial officer appears to have taken an archaic view of the matter.” —Sureshkumar K

High court stays GST action against Gujarat Medical Council, other boards

High court stays GST action against Gujarat Medical Council, other boards 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 20.03.2025

Ahmedabad : The Gujarat high court on Thursday stayed the Goods & Services Tax (GST) department from taking any action against five different councils and boards that regulate and register practitioners of different systems of medicine in the state over payment of taxes. According to the case details, the director general of GST Intelligence (DGGI) issued notices to the Gujarat Medical Council, the Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, the Gujarat Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, the Gujarat State Dental Council and the Gujarat State Council for Physiotherapy under Section 74 of the GST Act. 

It stated that these bodies are corporates and have GST numbers as well, for they provide services in lieu of charging fees. Hence, their services are taxable under the GST law. After getting expert opinion, these councils and boards replied to the department and conveyed that they are not liable to pay GST because they are not private corporate bodies but were formed under the statutes and they act as extended govt bodies. However, the department insisted that these councils and boards are not govt companies, but body corporates and therefore are liable to pay taxes on the services they offer. According to advocate Neel Lakhani, who appeared for DGGI, the councils and boards filed petitions in the HC claiming that they are not taxable persons and demanded that the communication issued by the GST department be quashed. 

After a preliminary hearing, Justice Bhargav Karia and Justice D N Ray issued a notice seeking a reply from the department by May 1, and directed the department not to take any coercive action against the petitioners until then

HC allows legal heir certs based on affidavits in absence of other proof

HC allows legal heir certs based on affidavits in absence of other proof 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK  17.03.2025

Chennai : Madras high court has observed that legal heir certificates can even be provided based on affidavits of applicants and their kin. When there is no other proof, the applicant can be directed to file affidavits and arrange for five affidavits from persons known to the family, which will include relatives and neighbours. On that basis, the certificate can be issued when there is no rival claim, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy said. 

The court passed the order on a plea moved by S Arasu, challenging the order of the Mylapore tahsildar denying him certificates as a legal heir of C P Subramaniyam who died on Dec 19, 1998, and the death was reported. However, so far, no one applied for a legal heir certificate. His application for the certificate was rejected as the authorities could not conclude who the legal heirs of the deceased were. 

Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the court. When the plea came up for hearing, the court said, “Once the death is reported, when an application is made for a legal heirship certificate, it has to be determined who the legal heirs are.” Setting aside the order, the court directed the petitioner to appear before the tahsildar for further enquiry on March 28. 

The tahsildar shall insist on affidavits or relegate him to the revenue inspector for further enquiry, and the authorities shall make further enquiry and come to a conclusion by their best judgment as to who all the legal heirs are, include the names of those persons, and issue the legal heirship certificate, the court said. The exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks, the judge added.

Retired Employee Not Entitled To Retrospective Promotion Or Benefits Of Promotional Post After Retirement : Supreme Court

Retired Employee Not Entitled To Retrospective Promotion Or Benefits Of Promotional Post After Retirement : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

28 Nov 2024 9:22 AM

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Nov. 27) held that an employee whose promotion was not effectuated before his retirement would not be entitled to retrospective promotion and the notional benefits attached to the promotion.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that “promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.”

The Bench heard the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal against the grant of notional benefits to respondent No. 1 employee, whose promotion to the post of Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) was approved post-superannuation.

The High Court approved the Administrative Tribunal decision which found that due to delay and laches on the appellant's part, respondent no.1 promotion was not effectuated before his superannuation though recommended before superannuation. Therefore, instead of directing retrospective promotion under Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, the Tribunal directed the appellants to provide the benefits of the promotional posts.

The Supreme Court considered the question of “whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement?”

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-State Government contended that service jurisprudence does not recognize retrospective promotion without a specific enabling provision, therefore, notional promotion cannot be granted retrospectively unless there exists a specific rule or exceptional circumstances. It argued that in the present case, Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, precludes retrospective promotion, therefore respondent no.1 would not be entitled to even notional benefits.

Finding force in the appellant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta answered the question negatively and observed that it would be unjustified to grant even a notional benefit to respondent no.1 because he had not assumed the office of the promoted position (CSO) and didn't serve in that capacity.

“promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.”, the court said.

Reference was drawn to the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das (2024), where the Court held that promotion is effectuated only when it is granted. The Court clarified that promotion would not be effectuated from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created.

The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that when the employee was not even borne in the cadre then how he can be promoted to the said cadre retrospectively.

The Court took into account Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules which prevent retrospective grant of promotion to an employee when his promotion was not even approved.

“In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nihit Nagpal, Adv. Mrs. Bindra Rana, Aor, Adv. Mr. Muneeb Rashid Malik, Adv. M/S. S. S. Rana & Co., AOR Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.

Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS DR. AMAL SATPATHI & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 927

Madras HC imposes ₹5L on TN govt for ‘unnecessary’ appeal

Madras HC imposes ₹5L on TN govt for ‘unnecessary’ appeal 

Sureshkumar.k@timesofindia.com 08.03.2025

Chennai : An ‘unnecessary’ appeal in Madras high court has cost Tamil Nadu govt₹5 lakh. Adivision bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan imposed the cost on the govt for ‘unnecessarily’ moving an appeal against the appointment of a sanitary worker to a minority-aided college. 

The judges observed that although the state govt had the power to regulate appointments in govt aided colleges, this cannot be done through administrative orders that contradict the existing rules. The issue pertains to a plea moved by St Christopher’s College of Education, Vepery, Chennai, challenging a GO rejecting the approval of the appointment of a sanitary worker for the college.

As a single judge of the court allowed the plea and ruled in favour of the college, the state moved the present appeal. The court said, “This unnecessary appeal by the govt challenges the order of the single judge, which directed approval of the appointment of a sanitary worker in the respondent college, which is admittedly a minority institution.” 

No doubt, the govt has the power to regulate appointments in govt-aided colleges, but that cannot be done through administrative orders that contradict the existing rules. We, therefore, see no merit in the appeal. This writ appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed, the judges said. Since we find that this appeal is a re-agitation of a matter settled by the court and approved by the Supreme Court, we impose a cost of ₹5,00,000 on the govt, the court said.

Madras High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On State Of Tamil Nadu For “Re-Agitating” Case Which Had Already Been Decided By Supreme Court

Madras High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On State Of Tamil Nadu For “Re-Agitating” Case Which Had Already Been Decided By Supreme Court

Upasana Sajeev

7 Mar 2025 3:06 PM




The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing a writ appeal in a matter that had already attained finality through the order of the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the State, Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the appeal was a “re-agitation” of a matter that had already been settled by a division bench of the Court and approved by the Supreme Court. Thus, the court imposed a cost directing the state to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the sanitary worker whose appointment was challenged and the remaining Rs. 2,50,000 to be paid to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority.

“Since we find that this appeal is re-agitation of a matter, which is already settled by a Division Bench of this Court and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we impose cost of Rs.5,00,000/- on the Government. A cost of Rs.2,50,000/- is to be paid through the College to the person appointed as a Sanitary worker and the remaining sum of Rs.2,50,000/- shall be paid to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority. The Government is granted four weeks time to comply with the order of the learned single Judge. Costs shall be paid within a period of 15 days from today,” the court said.

The state had filed the appeal challenging an order of the single judge approving the appointment of a Sanitary worker in St. Chritopher's College, which was a minority educational institution.

As per Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Rules 1976, the Government was to grant aid for the appointments made by the Institution. The State, however, issued a Government Order on October 24, 2013, to fill up Group-D posts in Government Aided Arts and Science College through contractual workers in an attempt to prevent private aided colleges from making regular appointments.

When the GO was challenged, the High Court allowed the plea and quashed the GO in 2017. The Government unsuccessfully challenged the single judge's order. The division upheld the order and dismissed the appeal in 2019. The issue was also a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The SLP was dismissed by the SC in 2022, making the quashment of GO final.

In the present case, the college approached the court after the Directorate of Education failed to approve the appointment of a sanitary worker. The single judge allowed the college's plea and ordered the State to grant the approval.

Though the state relied on a single judge's order to argue that the government had a right to pass a Government Order regulating the appointment to sanctioned posts in Government aided colleges, the court noted that the single judge's order was unsustainable as it ran counter to the order already upheld by the Supreme Court. The court held that though the Government had the power to regulate appointments in Government aided Colleges, it could not be done by way of administrative order contrary to the rules already in force.

Thus, finding no merit, the court dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan for M/s.Isaac Chambers

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. The Principal Secretary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

Case No: W.A.No. 574 of 2025

State nursing councils cannot refuse to register nurses who secure nursing degree from other States: Karnataka High Court

State nursing councils cannot refuse to register nurses who secure nursing degree from other States: Karnataka High Court

Published - February 11, 2025 08:09 pm IST - Bengaluru

THE HINDU BUREAU

A State government or State nursing council cannot deny registration of a graduate in BSc (Nursing) course for the reason that the student has not graduated from a college within that State, the High Court of Karnataka has said while directing the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council (KNMC) to register two women from Kerala who had secured their BSc (Nursing) degree from a college in Karnataka.

The court also said that a State nursing council cannot insist on the need to furnish a certificate of registration/recognition from the Indian Nursing Council (INC) for the purpose of enrolment/registration to practice the profession of nursing in that particular State.

College in Mangaluru

Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Daniya Joy and Neethu Baby, who secured their BSc (Nursing) degree from a college in Mangaluru in 2023.

The petitioners had questioned the action of the KNMC in insisting that they should submit registration/affiliation of the nursing institution from where they had completed their education in BSc (Nursing) with the INC to register them as they had not secured their nursing degree from Kerala.

However, while pointing out that there is no mandate under the INC Act for a college involved in the field of nursing education to seek and obtain registration from the INC for the purpose of carrying out its activities, the court said that with there being no requirement for registration with the INC, nor any procedure being provided for under the INC Act for registration, the question of the KNMC insisting upon petitioners to produce such registration certificate from the INC, does not arise.

Valid across India

“Once a citizen of India is qualified and has been conferred a degree, that degree would be valid across the country, which has to be recognised by every institution... A degree issued by a university having jurisdiction in a particular taluk, district, or State will be be recognised not only in all States of the country but even abroad,” the court observed.

The court also said, “No law can bind a person to a particular State, or mandate that a person can only work in the State where he or she has obtained his or her education. Narrow parochial views like these must be avoided and it is required to be held that a citizen of the country having a fundamental right to practice any trade or profession, such a person would be so permitted to practice their trade or profession anywhere in the country.

No need for reciprocity

Also, the court made it clear that there would be no requirement for any separate arrangement between the nursing councils of one State and another State to arrive at reciprocity. “The concept of reciprocity is unnecessary because the recognition of the degree being nationwide, any nursing council across the country will have to consider and act upon a degree conferred in another State, on account of the education being completed in a college recognised by the nursing council of that State,” the court observed.

Published - February 11, 2025 08:09 pm IST

Dismissed employee entitled to leave encashment, rules HC

Dismissed employee entitled to leave encashment, rules HC

TNN

Feb 28, 2025, 23:47 IST

Dismissed employee entitled to leave encashment, rules HC

Bengaluru: An employee dismissed from service as a penalty is entitled to encashment of privilege leave, the Dharwad bench of Karnataka high court ruled recently. Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation, while allowing the petition filed by one G Linganagouda.

A resident of Hosapete in Vijayanagara district, the petitioner was working as an assistant manager in Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank. On March 31, 2012, the bank initiated disciplinary proceedings for certain misconduct, and ultimately on Dec 19, 2014, dismissed him from service. Thereafter, he submitted a representation seeking encashment of 220 days of accrued leave. However, the same was turned down by the management, citing misconduct. Linganagouda challenged the same.

After perusing the materials on record, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that as per the judgements of the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh high courts, leave encashment to an employee is trite, a statutory right and the right to receive terminal benefits is recognised as a right to property obtaining under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

"Article 300A mandates that persons not be deprived of property save by authority of law. Therefore, it becomes unmistakably clear that any attempt by the employer to take away the right of any part of terminal benefit, which in the case at hand is leave encashment, without any umbrage of a statutory provision, is sans countenance. Therefore, it is a right of an employee not only under the statute, even under the fountainhead of all statutes – the Constitution of India," the judge further observed.

HC orders against Tiruvarur dt collectors since 2023 for inaction against panchayat member

HC orders against Tiruvarur dt collectors since 2023 for inaction against panchayat member

Suresh Kumar

Mar 1, 2025, 0:56 IST

HC orders against Tiruvarur dt collectors since 2023 for inaction against panchayat member

Chennai: Madras high court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu chief secretary to initiate action against those who held the post of Tiruvarur district collector since March 2, 2023, for failing to take action against a panchayat ward member who had filed a false affidavit during the election to the civic body.

Every candidate who contests in an election, irrespective of their election, is liable to be prosecuted for suppressing information in their affidavits, a division bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan said.

The court also censured the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) for submitting that only the govt officials concerned could pursue complaints of filing false affidavits by candidates. "This is a classic case where due to official apathy, a person who filed false information in an election affidavit not only completed his tenure but also escaped any consequence of criminal action," the bench said.

The issue pertains to a plea moved by D Sarathbabu. According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint with the TNSEC in August 2021, alleging that district panchayat member S Papa Subramaniyan filed a false affidavit suppressing facts about the wealth owned by him and his family. The commission forwarded the complaint to the collector. An inquiry was conducted, and it was found that the district panchayat member suppressed details about his wealth in the election affidavit.

Seven months after the inquiry, a report was sent to the district SP to initiate criminal prosecution. The police submitted that for offences under Section 177 (furnishing false information to a public servant) of IPC, a complaint should be filed only by the returning officer concerned before the jurisdictional judicial magistrate. However, the TNSEC submitted that once the election is completed, such complaints could only be forwarded to the govt officials concerned.