Initial appt date must be considered for pension: HC
The court recognised their temporary service from 2002 to 2006 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Dr C Narmada and 51 other former contract medical officers who had served in sanctioned posts in the state's Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic departments on a consolidated pay basis.
The petitioners challenged the govt's failure to consider their contractual service under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, for pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits.
They contended that similar benefits had been extended in comparable cases, citing relevant precedents and the Supreme Court's decision in Prem Singh vs state of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners also relied on a previous ruling by the high court in their support.
Notably, the govt's counsel did not object to the petitioners' reliance on the high court's earlier ruling.
Justice Nanda, referring to multiple judgments from the Supreme Court and high courts, held that temporary and contractual service must be counted as qualifying service under Rules 13 and 14 of the Pension Rules.
She also underscored constitutional protections under Articles 14, 16, 21, 39(d), 43, and 300-A, affirming that pension constitutes a property right and cannot be denied arbitrarily.
Allowing the writ petition, the court directed the state govt to process and issue pension payment orders within three weeks of receiving the order. The court specifically instructed that the initial date of appointment be used as the basis for computing pension entitlement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Cessed buildings revamp: HC forms panel to examine 935 notices issued by MHADA
In a move that may further delay the redevelopment of several dilapidated dangerous cessed buildings in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Monday appointed a two-member committee headed by former HC judge to examine 935 notices issued by MHADA executive engineers. The bench constituted a panel of Justice (Retired) Devadhar and Vilas D Dongre, retired Principal District Judge to examine the issue in regard to the notices and the subsequent actions to withdraw such notices, and the role of the different officials and/or motives if any, in issuance of these notices. The notices were issued to acquire cessed buildings to carry out redevelopment, if the owner or tenants do not do it. The cessed buildings are those structures the occupants of which pay cess tax or repair fund. The said buildings date back to pre-independence era and are largely present in south and central Mumbai. The MBRRB under MHADA conducts structural repairs of such old cessed buildings. The court recorded MHADA's statement that 889 notices shall be kept in abeyance and no further action shall be taken under them, unless the parties have consented in the redevelopment and the redevelopment has progressed. However, the committee will examine all 935 notices and submit its report preferably within six months. The HC said that the notices not withdrawn by MHADA will be stayed. The court passed an order on pleas challenging the notices issued by the executive engineers of Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which is a unit of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The court stayed impugned notices. The HC said it was not sufficient to merely pass stay order and observed, 'We are of the clear opinion that it would be imperative as also our duty as the Constitutional Court, to order an inquiry into such issues of highhandedness and abuse of powers by the concerned officials, to be undertaken by an independent committee appointed by the court.' A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor noted that the issue raised in the petitions was of ' colossal misuse' of the powers by the officials concerned of the Board, in issuing notices under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act. The provision under MHADA Act provides for compulsory redevelopment for cessed buildings that are declared dangerous. After the notices are issued, property owners or tenants get stipulated time to initiate the redevelopment within six months along with irrevocable agreement of minimum 51 percent of tenants or occupants. If the owners or tenants fail to undertake redevelopment, the cooperative housing society formed by the residents can make a proposal within the next six months. In case of failure of any action within these 12 months, MHADA can take over the properties and undertake redevelopment Senior advocates NV Walawalkar and MM Vashi for the petitioners argued that the impugned notices 'breached the Constitutional and the legal rights of the stakeholders including owners and tenants of the buildings' and executive engineers of the MHADA/Board did not have any authority under Section 79 (1) of the Act to issue notices.
United News of India
20 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC declines to stay draft electoral roll publication in Bihar, emphasises ‘En Masse Inclusion' over Exclusion
New Delhi, July 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court today declined to stay the publication of the draft electoral rolls for Bihar scheduled for August 1 under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI), despite concerns raised by opposition leaders and civil society groups over mass disenfranchisement. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refrained from granting interim relief, noting the time constraints as Justice Kant had to attend an administrative meeting later in the day. However, the Bench assured the petitioners that the matter would be heard expeditiously and asked counsels to indicate the time required for detailed arguments on Tuesday. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), pleaded with the court to restrain the ECI from issuing the draft list, arguing that the ongoing process could inconvenience nearly 4.5 crore voters. He said those excluded from the draft would be forced to undertake the cumbersome process of filing objections and proving their eligibility anew. Justice Surya Kant, however, remarked that since the list was only a draft, the Court retains the power to review and nullify the process later if legal infirmities are found. 'We can always strike down the process if we find any illegality,' he observed, declining to pass an order making the process subject to the outcome of the case, stating that such a presumption was already implicit. The petitioners also flagged the alleged non-compliance by ECI officials with the Supreme Court's earlier direction (July 10 order) to accept Aadhaar cards, Voter ID (EPIC), and Ration cards as proof of eligibility. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, responded that Aadhaar and EPIC were being reviewed, but raised concerns over the authenticity of ration cards, citing widespread instances of forged documents. Justice Kant, however, reiterated the presumption of validity attached to official documents and directed the ECI to ensure that Aadhaar and EPIC are accepted. 'You will proceed with Aadhaar and Voter ID... Forgery can happen with any document; that cannot be the basis to reject an entire category,' the Court observed, adding that the ECI should work towards 'en masse inclusion' rather than en masse exclusion. The controversy stems from a June 24, 2025, directive by the ECI launching a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitions, filed by a broad coalition of political leaders, activists, and civil rights groups, claim that the process is opaque, hasty, and disproportionately affects Muslims, Dalits, poor migrants, and illiterate citizens. The petitioners—including leaders from the INC, CPI, CPI-M, DMK, Shiv Sena (UBT), RJD, AIMIM, JMM, and others argue that this is the first time voters who have cast their ballots in multiple elections are being asked to reconfirm their citizenship, failing which their names may be deleted from the electoral roll. They further contend that the documents demanded by the ECI such as passports, birth certificates, and school certificates are not easily available to large sections of Bihar's population. By excluding widely used documents like Aadhaar and Ration cards, the petitioners claim the ECI is violating Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act and Rule 21-A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, both of which mandate adequate safeguards against arbitrary exclusion. In its counter-affidavit, the ECI has defended the exercise as necessary to ensure that only Indian citizens are included in the electoral rolls. It has maintained that Aadhaar and Ration cards are not reliable proof of citizenship and insisted that its eleven-document list was merely illustrative. The ADR, in its rejoinder, alleged large-scale procedural violations, including unauthorized mass-uploading of enumeration forms without voter consent, submission of forms for deceased individuals, and attempts to meet 'unrealistic' deadlines set by the Commission. These claims were supported by field reports from journalists and election observers. Previously, a vacation Bench led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had also cautioned that determination of citizenship is not within the ECI's mandate, urging it to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration cards as part of the process. Although the Supreme Court has not yet passed any definitive orders, the matter is now scheduled for detailed hearing, where the legality and fairness of the ongoing SIR exercise will be rigorously scrutinized. For now, the Court has allowed the ECI to proceed with the publication of the draft electoral rolls, leaving the door open for judicial intervention if procedural violations are established. UNI SNG RN
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Supreme Court quashes FIR against Lakshya Sen in birth certificate forgery case
The Supreme Court on Monday quashed an FIR against badminton player Lakshya Sen, his family members and coach in the birth certificate forgery case. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar said the continuation of criminal proceedings against Sen was an abuse of the process of court. The top court observed the very allegations that were examined and debunked by competent authorities were now being sought to be revived as it ruled out any fresh evidence meriting reopening of the appellants, particularly appellant 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades, including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international events," the court said. The top court went on, "To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice."The invocation of criminal law in such circumstances, the bench held, would amount to an abuse of process, which this court cannot countenance. The top court observed the Sports Authority of India (SAI), upon receiving complaints, initiated a verification process in 2016, which included medical testing and factual players were stated to have undergone bone ossification and dental tests at government-run hospitals including AIIMS, Delhi."The findings of these tests supported the birth years as recorded in official documents. On that basis, the SAI closed the matter. The CVC, an independent oversight body, was also seized of the issue and recommended no disciplinary proceedings against D K Sen. These findings were accepted by the relevant authorities and have not been set aside or reopened," the bench M G Nagaraj alleged birth certificates of Sen and his brother Chirag Sen were top court was hearing a plea against a February 19 Karnataka High Court order rejecting the petitions filed by Sen, his family members, and his coach U Vimal high court found prima facie evidence, warranting an investigation into the alleged Sen's parents Dhirendra and Nirmala Sen, along with his brother, coach, and an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association were involved in falsifying the birth to the complaint, the accused allegedly manipulated the birth certificates of the Sen brothers, reducing their age by approximately two-and-a-half alleged forgery was intended to allow them to participate in age-restricted badminton tournaments and avail government supported his claims with documents obtained under RTI Act and requested the court to summon original records from SAI and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in New on the evidence, the court directed the High Grounds police station to conduct an police subsequently lodged an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of petitioners moved the Karnataka High Court in 2022, securing an interim order, which stalled the argued the complaint and subsequent FIR were baseless, motivated, and intended to harass was alleged to have acted out of personal vendetta, after his daughter applied to join the Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy in 2020 but was not selected after the evaluation a coach at the academy, was named in the high court, while dismissing the petitions, observed the petitioners' counsel did not present arguments despite being given sufficient opportunities.- EndsTune InMust Watch
