COVID Duty By PG Doctors Should Be Considered Bond Service: Madras High Court Directs Thanjavur Medical College To Return Original Certificates

COVID Duty By PG Doctors Should Be Considered Bond Service: Madras High Court Directs Thanjavur Medical College To Return Original Certificates

Upasana Sajeev

6 May 2024 3:48 PM

While directing the Thanjavur Medical College to return the original certificates of a PG Doctor, the Madras High Court underlined that the COVID duty performed by the PG doctors should be treated as part of the bond period.

Justice GR Swaminathan thus took a different view than that of a single judge of the Madras High Court recently. The court also observed that educational certificates were not marketable commodities under Section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872. The court thus directed the Directorate of Medical Education to formally relieve the petitioner for the bonded service.

Also Read - Non-Consideration Of Representation To Statutory Authority Amounts To Dereliction Of Duty: Madras High Court

“It is declared that the Covid duty performed by the petitioner shall be treated as bond service. It is stated that the petitioner's original certificates are with the fifth respondent. I have been consistently holding that one's educational certificates cannot be retained for any reason as no lien can be claimed thereon. Educational certificates are not marketable commodities within the meaning of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,” the court said.

Also Read - Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Has Power To Reduce Or Waive Damages Imposed On The Employer: Madras High Court

The court was hearing a plea by Wanhor Sungoh who had completed his PG Course in Government Thanjavur Medical College in April 2022. At the time of joining the course, Sungoh was a non-service candidate and had executed a bond undertaking to serve two years after completing the course. This bond period was then reduced to one year.

The court noted that the issue involved was no longer res integra and the court had previously ordered for Covid duty to be set off against compulsory bond service period.

Also Read - Madras High Court Refuses To Handover 3-Yr-Old Son's Custody To Biological Mother Considering Child Has Never Lived With Her

Though the Additional Advocate General informed the court about the recent order, the court also noted that the first bench of Madras High Court had taken the view that Covid duty should be considered a bond service. The court was thus inclined to allow relief to the petitioner and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader

Also Read - Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 29 - May 5, 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 187

Case Title: Dr.Wanbor Sungoh v State

Case No: W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2024

Date Of Birth Recorded In HSC Pass Certificate Is To Be Taken As The Date Of Birth For All Purposes: Orissa High Court

Date Of Birth Recorded In HSC Pass Certificate Is To Be Taken As The Date Of Birth For All Purposes: Orissa High Court

Udai Yashvir Singh

5 May 2024 3:13 PM

A single bench of the Orissa High Court comprising of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Madan Raul vs State of Orissa & Ors has held that date of birth recorded in the HSC Pass Certificate is to be taken as the Date of birth for all purposes.

Background Facts

Madan Raul (Petitioner) entered into service in 1968 as a Peon. His date of birth was recorded as 12.07.1948 in the service book opened after this appointment. The Petitioner had not passed his HSC Pass Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha (Board) when he was appointed as a Peon. However, he cleared this examination in August 1970 and in the HSC Certificate issued by the Board, the date of birth of the Petitioner was recorded as 12.07.1950. Further the date of birth of the Petitioner in the Transfer Certificate was also mentioned as 12.07.1950.

Based on the HSC certificate and Transfer Certificate, the Petitioner was appointed as a Diarist-cum-Typist in 1973 and in the subsequent service book opened after his new appointment, his date of birth was recorded as 12.07.1950. Based on his date of birth to be 12.07.1950, the Petitioner was supposed to retire on 31.07.2008 but the Respondent passed an order of retirement of the dated 17.08.2006 by which the Petitioner was made to retire from service on 31.07.2006 considering his date of birth to be 12.07.1948.

The Petitioner challenged the retirement order before the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). However, the Tribunal was subsequently abolished and the matter was transferred to the High Court.

It was contended by the Petitioner that his date of birth recorded in his service book after joining as Diarist-cum-Typist was not objected to by anyone and was never corrected by following the due process of law. Further, since the date of birth in the 1973 service book was recorded after taking into account the HSC Pass certificate of the Petitioner, the Petitioner could not be made to retire in 2006.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that since the date of birth of the Petitioner while joining as a Peon was recorded as 12.07.1948, he was made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years, which fell due on 31.07.2006. Thus, no illegality had been committed by the Respondent.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that in both the HSC Certificate and the Transfer Certificate, the date of birth of the Petitioner was recorded as 12.07.1950. The said date of birth was also recorded in service book of the Petitioner opened after he joined as Diarist-Cum-Typist. The court further held that:

This Court is of the view that date of birth recorded in the HSC Pass Certificate is to be taken as the Date of birth for all purposes.

The court thus held that 12.07.1950 should be taken as the date of birth of the Petitioner and the Petitioner should have retired on 31.07.2008 instead of 31.07.2006. However, since the Petitioner had not discharged any duty for the period 01.08.2006 to 31.07.2008, he was not be entitled to get any salary for the said period. However, the court ordered the pay of the petitioner be notionally fixed and further ordered revision of pensionary benefits.

With the aforesaid observations, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of retirement

Case No.- WPC (OAS ) NO.50 of 2018

Case Name- Madan Raul vs State of Orissa & Ors

Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. L. Sahu, Adv.

Counsel for Respondents- nil

Tamil Nadu: Court convicts Nirmala Devi in Madurai Kamaraj university sex racket case

Tamil Nadu: Court convicts Nirmala Devi in Madurai Kamaraj university sex racket case

After the case became linked to the office of then Governor Banwarilal Purohit, Raj Bhavan refuted allegations of his involvement.

Nirmala Devi, the prime accused in the Madurai Kamaraj University (MKU) sex racket case Photo| K K Sundar

Harini M

Updated on:

30 Apr 2024, 7:23 am

VIRUDHUNAGAR: The Fast Track Mahila Court in Srivilliputhur on Monday convicted Nirmala Devi, the prime accused in the 2018 case involving a bid to lure female college students into giving sexual favours to Madurai Kamaraj university officials in exchange for marks and financial support.

The high-profile case came to light after an audio clip purportedly of the former Devanga Arts college assistant professor attempting to lure the female students was circulated online. After the case became linked to the office of then Governor Banwarilal Purohit, Raj Bhavan refuted allegations of his involvement.

While Nirmala Devi was convicted, the court acquitted the other two accused, former MKU assistant professor V Murugan and former MKU research scholar S Karuppasamy. Judge T Bagavathi Ammal said the quantum of punishment will be pronounced on Tuesday (April 30). According to sources, she was convicted under five sections, including sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

Nirmala Devi, who was teaching at Devanga Arts college in Aruppukottai, was arrested by Aruppukottai Town police on April 16, 2018 under Sections 370 and 511 of the IPC and 67 of the IT Act following a complaint from the college’s secretary Ramasamy, stating that four female students had complained to him that Nirmala tried to engage them to provide sexual favors to MKU officials in return for marks and financial support.

The case was transferred to CB-CID within days and Sections of 9 of Immoral Traffic Act and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act were also included. During the investigation, Murugan and Karuppasamy were also alleged to be involved in the crime and were arrested.

TN to appeal against acquittal of two accused

Governor Purohit, who addressed a press conference to refute the allegations against him, also set up a one-man committee led by retired IAS officer R Santhanam to probe the matter and file a report to him.

Trial in the Fast Track Mahila court began in 2018.

On Friday, the court adjourned the judgment to Monday as Nirmala wasn’t present due to health issues. After the judge pronounced the verdict on Monday, Nirmala was arrested and remanded in Madurai Central Prison. Addressing reporters, the special public prosecutor M Chandrasekaran said the state would appeal against the acquittal of Murugan and Karuppasamy. He added that witnesses from MKU had turned hostile.

One-man panel

Former governor Banwarilal Purohit also set up a one-man committee to probe the matter and file a report to him

Employee Appointed Through Valid Process Can't Be Denied Regularization If Performing Permanent Role For Considerable Time: Supreme Court

Employee Appointed Through Valid Process Can't Be Denied Regularization If Performing Permanent Role For Considerable Time: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

26 Apr 2024 9:17 PM

The Court distinguished the 'Umadevi' case dictum by noting that it has differentiated between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments.

Listen to this Article

The Supreme Court held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee.

Setting aside the High Court's decision which had declined to regularize the employment of employees who were serving continuously in the capacities of regular employees, the Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan observed that since the employees were appointed through a valid selection process akin to the selection process of the regular employee and were serving continuously for about 25 years, therefore, "the failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations."

"The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement.", the order dictated by Justice Vikram Nath said.

Before the Supreme Court, in support of the High Court's decision to reject the regularization of the appellants/employees' service, the respondent upon placing reliance on the Judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi contended that the appellant's employment under a temporary scheme could not confer upon them the rights akin to those held by permanent employees.

Umadevi's Distinguished By Supreme Court

The court held that the High Court had incorrectly applied the ratio of Umadevi in the present case. The court in Umadevi termed appointments through back door entry as irregular and invalid. Distinguishing Umadevi's case from the present case, after recording that the appellants have gone through the valid selection process by appearing in the written exams and viva voce, the court held that service conditions of the appellants warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status.

It is worthwhile to mention that in Umadevi's case, the court had distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure.

"The appointment cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as the conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case.", the court observed while referring to Umadevi.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and directed the regularization of the appellant's services.

Case Title: VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 330

Retrospective Re-Fixing Of Salary And Pension Benefits After Retirement Is Against Law: Madras High Court

Retrospective Re-Fixing Of Salary And Pension Benefits After Retirement Is Against Law: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

29 Apr 2024 1:30 PM

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Registrar of Madurai Kamaraj University reducing a former Lab Assistant's scale of pay and subsequently reducing the pension amount.

Justice RN Manjula that after retirement, the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the University had come to an end and the University held no authority to re-fix the salary and consequential benefits of the petitioner.

“The petitioner was retired from service by superannuation and hence, the employer - employee relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent University had come to an end and hence, the second respondent University holds no Authority to re-fix the salary and the consequential benefits of the petitioner,” the court observed.

The court also observed that as far as universities were concerned, only a Syndicate had the power to appoint the university and fix their emoluments. Thus, in the court's view, the retrospective re-fixation of salary and subsequent reduction of pension amount based on Local fund audit objection was against the law and liable to be set aside.

“As held in the above Judgment, only the Syndicate has the power to appoint the University staffs and fix their emoluments. The re-fixation of salary and consequential pensionary benefits post retirement retrospectively, in the opinion of this Court, is not in accordance with law and hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside,” the court said.

The court made the orders on a plea by R Rajamani, who was working as a Lab Assistant at Madurai Kamaraj University. Rajamani had retired from service on November 11, 1988. He had challenged an order from the University Registrar reducing his scale of pay on the basis that it was wrongly fixed. The registrar stated that the Local Fund Audit Department had raised objections and observed that the pay fixation was wrongly made on a higher scale.

Rajamani informed the court that though the pension amount was reduced from December 2023, the impugned order was passed only in March 2024. He added that he was not issued with any prior notice before issuing the impugned order.

The court relied on an earlier order wherein it had observed that Government Order could not superseded by any statutory provisions that govern the service conditions of the employees. The court also relied on the Apex Court order in State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar, wherein the Apex Court had held that the right to receive a pension was a right in property and executive instructions could not have a statutory character and could not be called as law.

The court thus set aside the order of the Registrar and directed the University to reimburse the recovered amount with interest within a period of 12 weeks.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.C.S.Thillainayagam

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate, Mr.Ashaiq Ismail for Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175

Case Title: R Rajamani v The State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: W.P.(MD)No.9989 of 2024

SENIORITY SHOULD NOT SUFFER

 

Maternity leave can’t be denied during probation: Maha tribunal

Maternity leave can’t be denied during probation: Maha tribunal

Apr 21, 2024, 04.54 AM IST

Mumbai: Probation should not be an obstacle to a woman who wants to be a mother during the period, held Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, quashing a 2015 state order denying maternity leave to a then 28-year-old assistant forest conservator in Mumbai. A probationer’s seniority should not suffer if she wants to be a mother which is her basic human and natural right, held MAT.

The state, being a welfare and progressive state, has guaranteed 180-day maternity leave to every woman employee, stated the MAT judgment pronounced on Friday by its member Medha Gadgil. Such leave is as much a right of the newborn to be with the mother as it is the mother’s to be with the child, it held in an application filed last year by the woman, now a divisional forest conservator at SGNP. She had challenged the 2015 order.

The forest dept in Jan 2015 “illegally” regularised as “extraordinary leave” the 180 days of maternity & an additional 43 days of post-natal leave taken in 2013 by public servant while on probation.

In 2023, the state, failing to consider her maternity leave, held her probation had ended in March 2015 instead of mid-2014 and it cost her her seniority, argued her lawyer.

Any probationer, though, must mandatorily complete the period of one or two years, held MAT, saying the solution lay in changing the method to compute the probation period. Probation can be extended for an employee’s assessment only if the person’s performance in the corresponding months on her resuming work is found “unsatisfactory”, ruled MAT. If her work is satisfactory in the 180-day period after she resumes work post maternity, her seniority would be deemed from the end date of her original probation period, along with her batchmates, said MAT. Such a mechanism would ensure govt gets sufficient and legally mandated period to appraise the probationer and “similarly valuable rights” of a child to be with the mother and mother’s to be with the child are protected, the judgment noted.

“Seniority of female employees should not go below her batchmates on grounds of her maternity leave,” MAT held and directed that her 180 days’ leave be treated as maternity leave and 43 additional days as childcare leave.

Supreme Court Comes to Rescue of UP Born Panipuri Seller’s Son, Upholds Medical Admission in Gujarat

 Supreme Court Comes to Rescue of UP Born Panipuri Seller’s Son, Upholds Medical Admission in Gujarat By Law Trend April 5, 2024 12:38 PM 

Read more: https://lawtrend.in/supreme-court-comes-to-rescue-of-up-born-panipuri-sellers-son-upholds-medical-admission-in-gujarat/

MBBS Internship : Supreme Court Directs NMC To Submit Details Of Stipend Paid To Interns By Medical Colleges In All States

MBBS Internship : Supreme Court Directs NMC To Submit Details Of Stipend Paid To Interns By Medical Colleges In All States

Gyanvi Khanna

4 Apr 2024 4:12 PM

In a pivotal matter regarding the payment of stipends for doctors undergoing their MBBS internships, the Supreme Court (April 01) issued a clear directive to the National Medical Commission (NMC) to submit details regarding the stipend status of medical colleges across all States.

The Court noted that the NMC has not given the details of the entire medical colleges in all States and hence, the earlier direction given on September 15, 2023, has not been complied with.

In the direction passed on September 15 last year, the Court had asked the NMC to file a tabulated chart and explain (i) whether it is true that 70% of the medical colleges in the country do not pay any stipend to interns or pay an amount that is less than the minimum set stipend (ii) what steps the NMC is taking to ensure compliance with the norm of paying internship stipend.

Taking note of the fact that the NMC has not given the complete details, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale directed it to do so within four weeks.

During the previous hearing, the Division Bench expressed concerns that medical colleges are not adequately paying the stipend. Justice Dhulia lamented that medical colleges are unprepared to pay stipends despite charging such hefty fees.

“What kind of medical colleges are they? They are charging one crore, I do not know how much they are charging for postgraduate students and they are not prepared to give the stipend also. Either you pay them, or you don't have the internship.,” Justice Dhulia had stated on the previous date.

During the hearing on April 1, Advocate Tanvi Dubey, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that even Foreign Medical Graduates (FMGs) are not paid a stipend. The Court voiced its discontent and orally observed that FMGs cannot be treated distinctly.

After hearing the submissions, the Court has now posted the matter for a final hearing on May 6, 2024.

Case Title: Abhishek Yadav and others v. Army College of Medical Sciences | W.P.(C) No. 730/2022

COURT CASE

 Reacting With 'Thumbs Up' Emoji To WhatsApp Message Informing Of Murder Does Not Amount To Celebrating The Murder: Madras High Court Upasana Sajeev 13 Mar 2024 9:25 AM Listen to this Article The Madras High Court recently upheld the order of a single judge reinstating a police constable into the service who was dismissed from service for reacting with a “thumbs up” emoji to a message about the brutal murder of a superior officer. The Madurai bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice R Vijay

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-pm-narendra-modi-road-show-permission-granted-coimbatore-252427?infinitescroll=1

Supreme Court Approves Rajasthan Government's Two-Child Rule

Supreme Court Approves Rajasthan Government's Two-Child Rule

The Rajasthan government rule falls within the purview of policy and there is "no need to interfere with it," said the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Dutta and KV Vishwanathan, in an order on February 20.

India News NDTV News  Desk Updated: February 28, 2024 11:21 pm IST

New Delhi:

People with more than two children will not be eligible for government jobs in Rajasthan -- this 1989 law of the state has now got the Supreme Court's seal of approval.

The rule is non-discriminatory, the judges said, hearing a petition challenging it.

It falls within the purview of policy and there is "no need to interfere with it," said the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Dutta and KV Vishwanathan, in an order on February 20.

The bench upheld the decision of Rajasthan High Court of October 12, 2022, and dismissed the petition of former soldier Ramji Lal Jat.

After retirement from defence services in January 2017, the soldier had applied for the post of a constable in Rajasthan Police in May 2018.

But his application was rejected under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, as he had more than two children after 1 June 2002.

The court said it had earlier approved similar rules – meant to promote family planning -- for contestants of Panchayat elections.

Madras HC dismisses second bail plea of former TN Minister Senthil Balaji

Madras HC dismisses second bail plea of former TN Minister Senthil Balaji

Dismissing his bail petition, Justice N Anand Venkatesh directed the Principal Sessions and Special Court for PMLA Cases to complete the trial in three months.

Former TN minister V Senthil Balaji (File photo | P Jawahar, EPS)

Express News Service

Updated on:

28 Feb 2024, 11:29 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has once again denied bail to former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji in the money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Dismissing his bail petition, Justice N Anand Venkatesh directed the Principal Sessions and Special Court for PMLA Cases to complete the trial in three months.

“This court does not find any merits in the bail petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed,” he said in the order pronounced on Wednesday.

He directed the Principal Sessions Court to hold trial on a day-to-day basis and dispose of the case in three months.

“The petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than eight months. So, it is appropriate to issue a direction to the Principal Sessions Court to dispose of the case within a time frame.

Accordingly, it is directed to dispose of the case within three months and the trial be conducted on a day-to-day basis,” Justice Anand Venkatesh ordered.

Senthil Balaji was arrested on June 14, 2023 by the ED on charges of receiving proceeds of crime generated through the cash of jobs scam allegedly committed during his tenure as Transport minister during 2011-15 in the Jayalalithaa Cabinet.

After arrested, he suffered severe chest pain and underwent by a bypass surgery at a private hospital before being shifted to the Central Prison at Puzhal.

His earlier round of bail petitions were dismissed by the Principal Sessions Court and the High Court and he moved the Supreme Court which directed him to approach the trial court for regular bail after finding no merits in the medical ground for enlarging him on bail.

Subsequently, he knocked the doors of the trial court unsuccessfully before filing the present bail petition in the High Court.

Ahead of the hearing in the High Court, he resigned from the post of minister without portfolio to pre-empt the ED from reiterating its argument that he may derail the probe as wielding influence in the capacity as a minister.

However, the arguments of change in circumstances could not gain the favour of the High Court which has now dismissed the bail petition.

During arguments, the senior counsels for Senthil Balaji raised several allegations against ED including tampering of electronic evidence. They also stated that the Central agency could not collect substantive material to prove the charges of money laundering.

However, ED contended that its charges were based on the evidence and materials obtained from the Central Crime Branch of Chennai city police which had registered three FIRs against him on the job scam.The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji, who was arrested by the ED last year in connection with a money laundering case.

This was the second time in four months, that the DMK leader's plea for the relief was rejected by the HC.

Dismissing the petition on Wednesday, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said since the petitioner (accused) was in custody for about 8 months, the Special Court, trying Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases, was directed to conduct the trial preferably on a day- to-day basis and complete it within three months.

Balaji was arrested on June 14.

2023 by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case linked to a cash-for-jobs scam when he was the Transport Minister during an earlier AIADMK regime.

The ED had on August 12 filed a charge-sheet, running to 3,000 pages against Balaji.

The Madras HC had on October 19 dismissed Balaji's earlier bail plea.

A local court has also dismissed thrice, his bail petitions.

COURT ORDER

'Pension Scheme Must Be Interpreted Widely' : Supreme Court Allows Central Govt Service To Be Included For Pension Of Gujarat Govt Employee Gyanvi Khanna 12 Feb 2024 11:47 AM Listen to this Article Recently, the Supreme Court, while granting a pension to a government employee under Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022, observed that a government servant earns a pension in lieu of tireless service by him/ her. Further, pension is often an important consideration for the person(s) seekin

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/use-of-lord-ayyappas-pictures-in-voting-slips-supreme-court-upholds-kerala-hc-finding-that-petition-challenging-k-babus-election-is-triable-249314?infinitescroll=1

Madras High Court Directs National Medical Commission To Give Eligibility Certificate To Foreign Graduate, Says English Not Mandatory Subject

Madras High Court Directs National Medical Commission To Give Eligibility Certificate To Foreign Graduate, Says English Not Mandatory Subject

Upasana Sajeev

17 Jan 2024 9:47 PM

The Madras High Court has recently directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to grant an eligibility certificate to a Foreign Medical Graduate and register her as a Medical Practitioner if there is no other impediment. The NMC had earlier rejected the eligibility certificate on the grounds that she had not studied English as a subject.

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing an appeal by the graduate, Ouwshitha Surendran, against a single-judge order holding her ineligible as per the rules. The court however noted that Ouwshitha qualified as per Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 since she had undergone all her education till her MBBS Degree in English Medium which was not less than the core course of English as prescribed by NCERT.

The court noted that with the multi-disciplinary trend, students were undergoing Higher Secondary courses in various combinations. The court added that with the New Education Policy, the straight jacket rule was now diluted. The court observed that the rules were now retrospectively amended to permit the study of missing subjects as additional subjects. The court also pointed out that the Government's policy welcomed Overseas Citizens of India to these professions.

“Thus, when the rule itself now stands retrospectively amended to permit the study of any missing subject as additional subject, and the policy of the Government of India is to welcome the Overseas Citizens of India with these kind of professional qualification to its fold, then if the case of the appellant is considered in the light of these developments, the original impugned order cannot survive,” the court said.

The court observed that Ouwshitha, who had undergone education in competent and proper institutions, was entitled to lead a professional life and career. The court also observed that if the authorities were to make her sit at home despite the qualifications, it would cause grave prejudice to her.

“The appellant has undergone her education in competent and proper institutions. She has completed her MBBS Course by proper 10 +2 + 5 years. Like any other student, she is also entitled to lead a professional life and career and her case deserves consideration empathetically. To make her sit at home, inspite of her qualification would cause gravest prejudice to her. For all the above reasons, this Writ Appeal is bound to succeed,” the court observed.

The NMC had argued that the curriculum studied by her at the 12th level did not have English as a mandatory subject. The NMC had further argued that she did not undergo regular, continuous, and co-terminus/simultaneous teaching and training in the subject of English as per the provisions of the eligibility requirement for taking admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002, read with Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, as well as the Code-7 under Chapter 4 of the NEET – UG, 2021.

The court noted that as per the Graduate Medical Education Regulations 1997, English was not required as a Subject but the requirement was English at a level not less than the core course of English as prescribed by the NCERT. Thus, the court observed that the appellant had the requisite qualification to enter and undergo an MBBS Degree.

Accordingly, the court set aside the order of the single judge and directed the NMC to issue an eligibility certificate and declare the results of her Screening Examination of Foreign Medical Graduates.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for Mr.TK.Bhaskar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs.Shubharanjani Ananth for R1 Mr.V.P.Raman for R2 Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan for R3

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 23

Case Title: Ouwshitha Surendran v National Medical Commission and Others

Case No: Writ Appeal No.1141 of 2022

Gratuity Calculated On Last Drawn Salary At Time Of Final Resignation If Employee Transferred Among Institutes Of Same Management: Bombay HC

Gratuity Calculated On Last Drawn Salary At Time Of Final Resignation If Employee Transferred Among Institutes Of Same Management: Bombay HC

Amisha Shrivastava

13 Jan 2024 5:20 PM

The court held that there would be no bifurcation of the gratuity amount based on last drawn salary in individual spells of service in the distinct institutes.

Listen to this Article

The Bombay High Court held recently that when an employee is transferred from one institute to another of the same management with continuity in service, gratuity will be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary at the time of final cessation of service.

Justice Sandeep V Marne held that there would be no bifurcation of the gratuity amount based on last drawn salary in individual spells of service in the distinct institutes.

The court dismissed four writ petitions filed by employers challenging the entitlement to gratuity of an employee who was transferred Terna Polytechnic, Navi Mumbai to Terna Engineering College, Navi Mumbai, and finally resigned from the latter.

“Once it is held that the two spells of services in Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College are interconnected, cessation of service for the purpose of payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Gratuity Act would occur on 21 July 2011 when Respondent resigned from the services of Terna Engineering College…There is nothing on record placed to prove that there was termination/cessation of services with Terna Polytechnic on account of resignation from services. Thus Respondent is entitled to gratuity on the basis of last wages drawn as on 21 July 2011 from Terna Engineering College in respect of his entire service from 17 September 1992 to 21 July 2011”, the court held.

The respondent Ravi Bhadrappa Randale served as a lecturer in Terna Polytechnic from September 17, 1992, to June 30, 2004, and subsequently joined Terna Engineering College on July 1, 2004, continuing until his resignation on July 21, 2011.

Randale filed an application for gratuity as he had not been paid for his services in both institutions. The Controlling Authority allowed the application partly and directed Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College to pay separate amounts of gratuity. All the parties challenged the quantification of gratuity.

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals filed by Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College and allowed Randale's appeal. It directed the Controlling Authority to determine the last drawn wages based on the VI Pay Commission scale.

Subsequently, the Controlling Authority computed the gratuity based on the last drawn wages of Randale at Terna Engineering College. It once again bifurcated the amount between the two institutes and imposed simple interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum with effect from July 21, 2011, till payment of the entire amount.

The Appellate Authority partly allowed further appeal by all parties, determining a higher last drawn salary and increasing the gratuity amount as well as bifurcating it among the two institutes, but reducing the interest rate to 10 percent per annum.

Thus, Terna approached the high court. The two educational institutions, owned by Terna Public Charitable Trust, argued for a division of gratuity payments based on separate services, while Randale pressed for a unified calculation considering the entirety of his employment.

The petitioners contended that the services in the two institutions should not be clubbed together for calculating gratuity. They argued that there was no continuity between the two services and that the last last pay drawn in Terna Polytechnic as of June 30, 2004, should be considered for the calculation of the amount to be paid by it.

The court relied on Section 2-A of the Gratuity Act, defining "continuous service," and noted that while the petitioners claimed to be distinct legal entities, there was no evidence of a fresh recruitment process when Randale transitioned from one to the other. The relieving letter and the absence of a gap between the spells of service established the continuity of employment, the court observed.

Thus, the court held that there was connectivity in the two spells of service, leading to a continuous period of employment from September 17, 1992, to July 21, 2011. Therefore, the court determined that the gratuity should be based on the last drawn wages as of July 21, 2011, from Terna Engineering College.

The court acknowledged an error in bifurcating the gratuity amount between Terna Polytechnic and Terna Engineering College but deemed it inconsequential given the common management of both institutions. Since there was continuity in service with the same management, the court held that only Terna Engineering College should be directed to pay the entire gratuity amount.

The court dismissed the writ petitions and held that Randale is entitled to withdraw the entire amount of gratuity deposited with the Appellate Authority and the court, along with accrued interest.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 11864 of 2019

Case Title – M/s. Terna Polytechnic v. Ravi Bhadrappa Randale and connected cases

Supreme Court rejects plea to remove Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji from State Cabinet

Supreme Court rejects plea to remove Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji from State Cabinet

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that a Governor needs the recommendation of the Chief Minister to dismiss a Minister.

Senthil Balaji and Supreme Court

Abhimanyu Hazarika

Published on :

5 Jan, 2024, 1:35 pm

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking removal of Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji from the State Cabinet [ML Ravi vs Principal Secretary to Governor, Government of Tamil Nadu and ors].

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan orally remarked that a Governor needs the recommendation of the Chief Minister to dismiss a Minister and cannot act independently on the issue.

It, therefore, refused to interfere with the judgment of the Madras High Court which had rejected the plea to remove the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) minister from the cabinet.

"We have perused the impugned judgment of the High Court and concur with the view taken. No interference is called for under Article 136," the bench stated while dismissing the plea.

Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) last year in a money laundering case. He was accused of being involved in a cash for jobs scam during his tenure as Transport Minister in the AIADMK-led Tamil Nadu government between 2011 and 2015. He had later joined the DMK and became a minister in 2021.

In September 2023, the Madras High Court observed that Balaji continuing in the State Cabinet as Minister without portfolio did not "augur well with the principles of Constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance and purity in administration."

The High Court, therefore, "advised" Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin to take a decision on whether Balaji should continue to be a State Minister despite his arrest and remand to judicial custody.

The High Court also noted that it would be a matter of debate as to whether the Governor can unilaterally disqualify a person officiating as a minister, if such person has not incurred any disqualification under the Constitution or under any statute.

The High Court, however, did not pass any directions for the removal of Balaji as a minister leading to the instant appeal before the Supreme Court.

The plea filed by lawyer ML Ravi challenged Balaji’s continuance in the Cabinet despite him being in jail.

Will not intervene in DMK’s campaign against NEET: SC

Will not intervene in DMK’s campaign against NEET: SC

THE HINDU BUREAU NEW DELHI

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to intervene against a students’ signature campaign announced by the DMK against the conduct of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) in the State, stating that the current generation was smart enough to see through the motive and the agenda behind such moves.

“Fortunately, we now have a very informed generation. Our children are not so innocent. They understand everything and are far ahead of our generation. They understand the motive, the agenda and how it all happens,” Justice Surya Kant, heading a Bench also comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan, said.

Advocate M.L. Ravi, president of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi and the petitioner, said this was a case of the “ruling party taking advantage of children politically”. However, the court said: “Do not raise these kinds of pleas in PILs… the campaign is not going to affect anything. This kind of all-India test has to be held. That is policy.”

The petitioner said Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin had announced the signature campaign against NEET and Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had announced that 50 lakh signatures had been collected in 50 days.

“There is no permission obtained from parents to take the signature of the students. By this act, students get disturbed and later, they may have to take the NEET. The students may end up in mental agony and spoil their career,” the petition had said.

High court seeks report from magistrate who gave bail to Periyar University VC

High court seeks report from magistrate who gave bail to Periyar University VC

Chennai: Madras high court has called for a report from the magistrate who granted interim bail to Periyar University vice-chancellor R Jagannathan, who was arrested by Salem police on charges of floating a private company without prior consent of the government and for offences punishable under SC/ST Act.

Justice P Dhanabal passed the interim order on a plea moved by Salem police seeking to cancel the interim bail.

The issue pertains to an order passed by judicial magistrate II of Salem by rejecting the remand of Jagannathan who was arrested under Sections 294(b) (obscene acts), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 460 (trespass), 409 (criminal breach of trust) r/w.511, 506(1) (criminal intimidation) and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

According to the prosecution, the magistrate observed that the offences are punishable within 7 years and thereby, as per the judgment in the Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil case, the procedures under section 41 of CrPC have to be followed.

But the magistrate failed to note that the offences punishable under section 409 is up to life and life means not less than 20 years. Since the offences under section 409 r/w 511 is punishable up to 10 years, the observation of the magistrate is erroneous, the prosecution said.

“The magistrate failed to consider the mandatory provisions of section 15-A of SC/ST (POA) Act. As per Section 15-A (3) of SC/AT (POA) Act, the victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding,” they added.

Recording the submissions, the court said, “In this context, the magistrate has recorded in the order that there is no allegation in respect of cheating or misappropriation and thereby the magistrate has not considered the section 409 r/w 511 IPC.”

Further the order was passed by the magistrate under section 59 of CrPC and as per section no person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of magistrate, the court said.

In the present case also, the police have arrested the accused and then produced before the magistrate and thereby, the magistrate has passed the order under CrPC and not by invoking the SC/ST (POA) Act, the court added.

Since the magistrate has passed the order in detail, it is appropriate to call for a report from the magistrate and also to hear the police as well as the victim , the court said in its order.

HC relief for Block Development Officer

HC relief for Block Development Officer

THE HINDU BUREAU

MADURAI

22.11.23

Bringing relief to a Block Development Officer (BDO), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Thanjavur Collector to return ₹43,899 that was recovered from the petitioner. The court was hearing a petition filed by D. Raghunathan, who said he was promoted as a BDO and joined the panchayat union office Thiruvaiyaru in 2015.

In 2005, one Chinnaiyan fell down on the road at Kadambangudi village and kept his hand on the wall of a school adjacent to the road. Due to rainfall and short circuit, electricity passed on the wall and he was electrocuted. The father of Chinnaiyan who tried to rescue him also suffered an electric shock and died on the way to hospital.

The legal heirs of the deceased filed suits and claimed compensation. The Electricity Board and the District Educational Officer were arrayed as defendants. The Thiruvaiyaru BDO was made a defendant in 2011.

Though the previous BDO received summons, he did not take steps to contest the suits. The EB and the Education Department contested the case and the trial court awarded the compensation. Execution petitions were filed and subsequently attachment was ordered.

The Collector ordered payment of the decretal amount from the general funds of the panchayat union. The BDOs who held office from March 31, 2005 to February 21, 2015 were asked to deposit an amount. The petitioner was also directed to pay ₹43,899. The petitioner had joined on February 21, 2015, after the ex-parte judgment was passed in 2014. He challenged the order passed by the Collector.

Justice Battu Devanand observed that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in the entire episode, from the date of the unfortunate incident of the electrocution to the date of the attachment order passed in the execution proceedings. No notice was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation. The order issued by the Collector was against the principles of natural justice and was liable to be set aside, the court observed.

Don’t see a married woman’s residential status through a patriarchal prism, says HC

Don’t see a married woman’s residential status through a patriarchal prism, says HC

The petitioner had challenged the appointment of a woman as village panchayat secretary, on the ground that she was not a local resident as she migrated to her husband’s village after marriage.

Though a married woman ordinarily lives at her husband’s place, she can gain public employment by claiming residential status at her natal place as well, rules Justice R.N. Manjula

THE HINDU BUREAU CHENNAI

Though a married woman ordinarily lives at her husband’s place, she cannot be presumed to have disowned her residential rights at her parents’ house on account of her marriage. The rules of marriage do not impose any such condition on a woman, and therefore, she can gain public employment by claiming to be a resident of her native village, the Madras High Court has said.

“For the purpose of getting a separate ration card after marriage, her name would have got deleted from her parents’ ration card. With that alone, it cannot be said that a married woman had severed her ties with her parents’ place and her residential status in respect of her parent’s house has come to a closure once and for all,” Justice R.N. Manjula said.

The judge made the observations while dismissing a writ petition filed by G. Mayakannan, an aspirant to the post of Jayakondam village panchayat secretary in Cuddalore district. The petitioner had challenged the appointment of a woman to the post, on the ground that she was not a local resident anymore because she had migrated to her husband’s village after marriage.

Rejecting the challenge to the appointment on such a ground, the judge said the appointee had every right to visit or stay with her parents at Jayakondam at her own convenience and choice. Since it had not been disputed by the petitioner that she had roots in Jayakondam, the judge said that in such a case, she could not be perceived to be a stranger to her natal village. “In today’s world, men and women go to several places for the sake of education or occupation, but still consider their native place as their permanent residence. However, there is a notion that a married woman completely abandons her native place and assumes her husband’s place as her only place of residence,” the judge said, disapproving of such notions.

“If a married woman chooses to live between her natal home and marital home on account of her employment, business or otherwise, nothing can prevent her from exercising such an option,” the judge said.

Legal notices

Though the woman appointee in the present case had produced legal notices issued by her estranged husband to prove that she had returned to her parental home, the judge said: “The above facts are completely personal to the petitioner, and she should not have been driven to such compulsion of revealing these private facts about herself for the sake of this writ petition.”

“A woman would turn to her parental abode for any good or bad reasons, and sometimes, she would even prefer to stay there for any period of her choice through an understanding with the inmates of her parental home. The will of a woman to exercise residential choice at her natal home should not be viewed through patriarchal prism in order to deny her the residential status there,” she added.