Section 2 (d) of the Act defines Controlling Authority  as an authority appointed by the appropriate Government under Show

Section 2 (d) of the Act defines Controlling Authority  as an authority appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 3 of the Act. Under Section 3 the Controlling Authority is made responsible for the administration of the Act and it further provides for appointment of different authorities for different areas. Section 7 deals with for determination of the amount of gratuity. Every person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under the Act is required to send a written application to the employer in the prescribed form for payment of such gratuity. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides once the gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in 28writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the Controlling Authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined and arrange to pay the amount of gratuity to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. The Scheme envisaged under Section 7 of the Act, is that in case of any dispute to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee payable to gratuity etc. the employer is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority the admitted amount payable as gratuity. 

Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Show

Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly mandates that apart from an offence punishable under the PC Act, any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified thereunder can also be tried by a Special Judge. Sub-s. (3) of s. 4 specifies that a Special Judge, when trying any case, can also try any offence, other than an offence specified in s.3, with which the accused may, under the Cr.P.C., be charged at the same trial. In view of s. 22 of PC Act, provisions of the Cr.P.C. are to be applied to trials for offence under the PC Act, subject to certain modifications. [para 17-18] 1.2 The second supplementary charge-sheet dated 12.12.2011 was filed in the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 dated 21.10.2009. From the said second charge-sheet it is clear that the offences are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the course of 2G Scam Cases and, as such, they have been made accused in the 2G Scam Case. [para 21] 1.3 The co-accused of 2G Scam case charged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried only by the Special Judge. The Special Judge alone can take cognizance of the offence specified in s. 3 (1) of PC Act and conspiracy in relation thereto. A magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence as specified in s. 3 (1) of the PC Act. The petitioners are co-accused in the said 2GScam case. In this background s. 220,Cr.P.C. will apply and the petitioners though accused of different offences, i.e., u/s 420/120-B IPC, alleged to have been committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, u/s 223 of Cr. P.C. they may be charged and can be tried together with the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases. 

Tribunals have considered the submissions.  In our view, error is apparent in the order of the Tribunal, as the status of the applicant-respondent has not been the same as that of Shivendra Pal or Naresh Bagri.  They were working as driv..

Tribunals have considered the submissions.  In our view, error is apparent in the order of the Tribunal, as the status of the applicant-respondent has not been the same as that of Shivendra Pal or Naresh Bagri.  They were working as driver, which is a Group C post on no work no wages basis; whereas the applicant-respondent was working as a casual worker with temporary status. It is a matter of common knowledge that appointment as causal worker is made against Group D post.  Besides, it is also not mentioned in the order of the Tribunal that the applicant had ever applied for the post of Driver. Thus, the applicant not having worked on the post of Driver on casual basis cannot claim benefit of age relaxation or other relaxation which has been extended to Shivender Pal and Naresh Bagri in terms of the order of the Tribunal. In view of the above, in our view, the Review Application deserves to be allowed.  It is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 22.12.2011 is hereby recalled and the OA is restored to its original number. Let the OA itself be listed for final disposal on 29.5.2014. 

On the conclusion of the judgment Mr. Sathe, learned Senior  Counsel requests the Court to grant adequate time to the Municipal Corporation to make administrative arrangements consistent with the judgment of the Court. Learned counsel states ..

On the conclusion of the judgment Mr. Sathe, learned Senior  Counsel requests the Court to grant adequate time to the Municipal Corporation to make administrative arrangements consistent with the judgment of the Court. Learned counsel states that a period of one year may  be granted in order to enable the Municipal Corporation to make necessary arrangements for being represented in Courts and Tribunals in litigation involving the Corporation. Having due regard to the fact that in an earlier order of a Division Bench of this Court, a period of one year was granted by the Court to the Municipal Corporation, we are of the view that a period of six months would be sufficient in the interests of justice. We accordingly allow the Municipal Corporation a period of six months to make necessary administrative arrangements so as to ensure due compliance with the rules framed by the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council.

Advocate Act, 1961

Constitution of India

R.D.Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered bythe judgment dated 28.7.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, along w..

R.D.Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered bythe judgment dated 28.7.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, along with connected matters and the judgment dated 7.5.2013, rendered by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (Civil) No.21939-22009/2011, titled as State of H.P. and others versus Som Nath and others.

This writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the due and admissible vacation salary to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of ..

This writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the due and admissible vacation salary to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner. If the amounts are not disbursed as above, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same.

The menace of encroachment on the Government land has assumed alarming proportion. Section 122 (1) (c) has been incorporated to curb this tendancy of encroachments made on Government land by unscrupulous persons. The Government land belongs t..

The menace of encroachment on the Government land has assumed alarming proportion. Section 122 (1) (c) has been incorporated to curb this tendancy of encroachments made on Government land by unscrupulous persons. The Government land belongs to all and all out efforts must be made to protect the same. PW-1 Yagya Dutt and PW-2 Ashok Kumar have categorically deposed that petitioner has encroached upon the Government land comprised in Khasra No.347/1 measuring 0-14-17 hectares. He himself has submitted an application for regularization. The finding of fact recorded by both the authorities cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the orders passed by both the authorities below. The authorities below have correctly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties.

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Consequently, taking into consideration the over-all facts of the case,. Judge Stated that he would direct that the suit for specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction and cancellation of gift deeds as well as permanent injunction bear..

Consequently, taking into consideration the over-all facts of the case,. Judge Stated that he would direct that the suit for specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction and cancellation of gift deeds as well as permanent injunction bearing No. 147/2012 (Old No.201/2007) titled as Basudev v. Narendra & Ors pending before Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan be disposed of within a period of eighteen months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. Adjournment for the mere asking should not be granted. When any request is made for an adjournment it should be only entertained on an application in writing with reasons set out. The trial court may thereupon adjourn the matter as warranted only for good reason/s.  The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 

It is the own case of the petitioners that there were 81 vacancies for selection to the post of AEN which had to be bifurcated in 70:30 ratio for the assessment period 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. On bifurcation, total vacancies of AEN came to be 57 ..

It is the own case of the petitioners that there were 81 vacancies for selection to the post of AEN which had to be bifurcated in 70:30 ratio for the assessment period 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. On bifurcation, total vacancies of AEN came to be 57 against 70% quota, out of which 9 posts were meant for SC, 4 for ST and 44 were unreserved. However, a revised reservation calculation were proposed as per which the post meant for SC were found to be 6, for ST 3 and unreserved were 48. It is also not in dispute that 1 SC candidate, namely, Harbhajan Singh had qualified against general standards (General category) in the panel of 2003-2005 who had been litigating with the petitioners for his empanelment in the 2003-2005 in which he was successful and was promoted in the panel of 2003-2005 causing vacancy in the panel of 2007-2009 in the General category in which respondent No.1 has been ordered to be considered by the Tribunal being the senior most. We are not convinced with the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that on having been adjusted against the panel of 2003-2005 in the General category quota, Harbhajan Singh had carried the post in the said panel causing a reduction in the unreserved category to 47 which were otherwise 48 in number. 

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, could not point out as to whether the period of absence of 98 days was without pay and allowances. In view of the aforesaid discharge certificate of the respondents themselves stating the ser..

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, could not point out as to whether the period of absence of 98 days was without pay and allowances. In view of the aforesaid discharge certificate of the respondents themselves stating the service rendered by the petitioner as 14 years and 324 days, we are of the opinion that it is clinching evidence in favour of the petitioner and having regard to Regulation 9 of Pension Regulations, the fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less than six months is to be treated as a completed one half year, therefore, the petitioner had rendered 15 years of service. It is not in dispute that 15 years of service is the qualifying service to earn pension. The petitioner would thus be entitled to pension. 

Judges note that not only has work been assigned but considerable work has been done according to respondents, though that factor alone would not suffice as we had made clear vide our interims orders that the respondent No.3 would have to meet the..

Judges note that not only has work been assigned but considerable work has been done according to respondents, though that factor alone would not suffice as we had made clear vide our interims orders that the respondent No.3 would have to meet the benchmark of the eligibility norms and any work done was at its risk and cost. 21. We are, thus, of the view that the tendering process in question does not call for any interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is no arbitrariness, illegality or perversity involved in the same. On the other hand, the concerned authorities have duly verified the experience of respondent No.3 and, undisputedly, the financial terms are the best as offered by respondent No.3. 22. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Judges found that Senior Town Planner, Faridabad Circle is already seized of the matter and has in fact issued a letter dated 22.7.2013 to the District Town Planner for necessary action. Thus, the concerned authorities are in seisin of the dispute..

Judges found that Senior Town Planner, Faridabad Circle is already seized of the matter and has in fact issued a letter dated 22.7.2013 to the District Town Planner for necessary action. Thus, the concerned authorities are in seisin of the dispute. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, assures that he will get the matter personally verified to ensure that whatever action has been initiated by the Senior Town Planner is taken to its logical conclusion.  We dismiss the petition with the aforesaid observations.  In view of our observations, a copy of the petition has been supplied to learned Additional Advocate General in Court. 

In the light of the above, let an affidavit be filed by the Director General, News Service Division, AIR, Akashwani, New Delhi for failure to appear in the court despite directions given by this court vide orders dated 10.01.2014 and 21.02.2014. A..

In the light of the above, let an affidavit be filed by the Director General, News Service Division, AIR, Akashwani, New Delhi for failure to appear in the court despite directions given by this court vide orders dated 10.01.2014 and 21.02.2014. Affidavit shall be filed within a period of three weeks. The court is also appalled to find that no prompt steps were taken by the said department to file reply to the review petition as the same is still not on record. Let the counsel take steps to place the said reply on record before the next date of hearing. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by the applicant within a period of four weeks. List this matter for final disposal on 23rd May, 2014. 

This writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the  Show

This writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the  Constitution of India in view of the prevailing climate in which the violation of these rights is not uncommon. With the increasing awareness and emphasis on gender justice, there is increase in the effort to guard against such violations: and the resentment towards incidents of sexual harassment is also increasing. The present petition has been brought as a class action by certain social activists and NGOs with the aim of focusing attention towards this societal aberration, and assisting in finding suitable methods for realization of the true concept of ‘gender equality’; and to prevent sexual harassment of working women in all work places through judicial process, to fill the vacuum in existing legislation. 

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

Needless to say, the competent authority will now only examine as to whether the petitioner should get full pay and allowances for the suspension period, and not, revisit its order which, inter alia, directs reinstatement of the petitioner and reg..

Needless to say, the competent authority will now only examine as to whether the petitioner should get full pay and allowances for the suspension period, and not, revisit its order which, inter alia, directs reinstatement of the petitioner and regularization of the said period, for the purposes of pensionary benefits. 12. The competent authority before passing the order would issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to whether he would want to have a say in the matter. After hearing the petitioner, the competent authority will be free to pass an order; albeit in accordance with law. Since the acquittal of the petitioner took place as far back as in 2009, the competent authority would expedite the hearing in the matter and pass an appropriate order in the matter. 13. The writ petition is thus allowed, in the aforesaid terms. The necessary consequences of this would be that order dated 04.04.2011 will also fall by the wayside. The said order, is also, accordingly, quashed.

Insofar as the plea of discrimination qua Mr. Kiran Pal is concerned, I find, no such plea was taken in the claim petition except a bald averment that a workman junior to the petitioner is continuing in the department without naming him. In the ab..

Insofar as the plea of discrimination qua Mr. Kiran Pal is concerned, I find, no such plea was taken in the claim petition except a bald averment that a workman junior to the petitioner is continuing in the department without naming him. In the absence of any specific averment and the name of the person so engaged, no relief could have been granted by the Industrial Tribunal. That apart, it has been observed by the Industrial Tribunal in its order dated May 02, 2013 as under: “The anagement witness has stated in his cross-examination that one Sh. Kiran Pal been continued in service. He was in freezing department whereas the workman was in the Battery Department. Sh. Kiran Pal was trainee technician and he was in deferent department, so his services have been retained. He was working at the time of this workman”. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Industrial Tribunal, even the last plea of the petitioner is unsustainable. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.

We have specifically questioned learned counsel for the Petitioner that considering the nature of the duties required to be performed by the Petitioner of carrying troops in the official vehicle over rugged terrains, naxal/terrorist infested areas..

We have specifically questioned learned counsel for the Petitioner that considering the nature of the duties required to be performed by the Petitioner of carrying troops in the official vehicle over rugged terrains, naxal/terrorist infested areas and disastrous conditions, if this Court grants the prayer of the Petitioner, would it not be playing with the life of the Petitioner as also with the lives of troops in the vehicle driven by a person who has been declared unfit to perform his duty in ITBP Force by the Medical Board as well as Review Medical Board. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had no answer to the above question. In Judges opinion, the grievance of the Petitioner has already been redressed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5939/2010 and we do not find any reason to pass an order for constitution of another Review Medical Board. Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse cannot be monopolised/cornered by a few individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is treating the allotment of a PCO Booth in favour of..

Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse cannot be monopolised/cornered by a few individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is treating the allotment of a PCO Booth in favour of her physically handicapped late husband as a family asset which can be inherited by her and her family members. Consequently, present writ petition and application being bereft of merit are dismissed. However, keeping in view the intent and objective of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, respondents are directed to allocate the PCO Booth/Tea Stall to be vacated by the petitioner, in accordance with the aforesaid Act, within a period of two months.

Dr. Naresh Gupta and Dr. S.Ramji had handed over the following certificate:- “The patient, Amit Ahuja, a case of hemophilia presently admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital is now in a stable condition without factor VIIa treatment and is maintainin..

Dr. Naresh Gupta and Dr. S.Ramji had handed over the following certificate:- “The patient, Amit Ahuja, a case of hemophilia presently admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital is now in a stable condition without factor VIIa treatment and is maintaining satisfactory progress. If at a later date, the patient would need factor VIIa, the hospital would provide the same.”

The aforesaid certificate is taken on record and the undertaking given by the Lok Nayak Hospital is accepted by this Court and Lok Nayak Hospital is held bound by the same. 

Nearly nine years after the rejection of his revision the petitioner rose from his slumber like Rip-Van-Winkle and filed the instant petition in the year 1998. It is apparent that if the petitioner were to file a civil suit challenging the penalty..

Nearly nine years after the rejection of his revision the petitioner rose from his slumber like Rip-Van-Winkle and filed the instant petition in the year 1998. It is apparent that if the petitioner were to file a civil suit challenging the penalty imposed upon him the same would have been dismissed as barred by limitation. 33. It is settled law that a good measure to determine whether a writ petition is hit by delay and laches is to see the period for limitation for filing a suit if the challenge was by way of suit and if the suit was barred by limitation, the same would be a measure to hold that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The cause sought to be resuscitated by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition nearly nine years after the rejection of his revision is incapable of being brought to life, more so when the plea relating to issuance of note of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority does not find a reflection in the pleadings made in the instant petition, and thus the writ petition is dismissed.

(I) The Committee will be notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India forthwith.

(II) The Committee will have its office in the national capital and requisite infrastructure including manpower will be pro..

(I) The Committee will be notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India forthwith.

(II) The Committee will have its office in the national capital and requisite infrastructure including manpower will be provided by the Central Government.

(III) The remuneration and perquisites of the Chairman of the Committee and its members will be fixed by the Union Government in consultation with the individual concerned and in accordance with prevailing norms.

(IV) All State Governments as well as different Ministries/Departments/Wings of the Central Government who are currently looking after the multi-dimensional issues pertaining to road safety will submit their first report to the Committee within three months from today indicating the state of implementation and enforcement of all laws pertaining to (i) licensing; (ii) certification of fitness of vehicles; (iii) limits of use of vehicles i.e. passenger carrying capacity, weight carrying capacity etc.; (iv) use of road safety devices; (v) adherence to norms including user of roads, and (vi) deployment of adequate manpower for enforcement of the existing provisions of law.

(V) The Union Government as well as the State Government shall also indicate their views on the necessity of further change in the law, if any.

(VI) The Union Government as well as the Government of the States shall also offer their views on the suggestions/recommendations of the different bodies/persons noticed and mentioned in the present order which are presently not under implementation.

(VII) The Committee shall undertake a detailed scrutiny and examination of the Report(s) that may be submitted and the views of the Central and State Governments with regard to necessity of further legislation or changes in the existing laws.

(VIII) The Committee will submit its report to this Court within three months after receipt of report from the Union and the State Governments indicating and expressing its views on each of the matters referred to in the present order including the deficiencies and the defaults on the part of any of the stakeholders, as may be found.

35. The matter be posted for further consideration before this Court on the expiry of six months from today along with the report (s) as may be submitted pursuant to the present order.

36. A copy of this order be furnished to the Petitioner and each of the Respondents as well as to the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories.

Writ Petition is allowed as above with no order as to costs. All financial benefits as per Page 8 8 this order shall be paid to the petitioner as early as possible and in no case later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order..

Writ Petition is allowed as above with no order as to costs. All financial benefits as per Page 8 8 this order shall be paid to the petitioner as early as possible and in no case later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This order shall also be applicable to all Judicial Officers who have been denied benefit of three advance increments on the basis that they acquired higher educational qualification in law before 1.11.1999.