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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.