Skip to main content

Employees undertaking VRS due to disability can be reinstated: Kerala HC

A Kerala High Court division Bench comprising of Justice Antony Dominic and Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu has held that an employee who took voluntary retirement due to a disability while in service should be reinstated if he or she wishes so later on.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Southern Railway against an order issued by the Ernakulam bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, which had ordered such reinstatement, with effect from February 15, 2002 along with all consequential benefits.

She had filed a petition in 2009, before the tribunal seeking reinstatement in service, claiming such right under section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995.


The Counsel for the Railways, Tojan J. Vathikulam had contended that the woman, Fancy Babu, had voluntarily applied for retirement. Rejecting the contention, the Bench asserted, “Railways could not take advantage of such an application made by a disabled employee under compelling circumstances arising out of the disablement”.

Fancy Babu was working as a senior clerk at Palghat division of Southern Railway. She had taken a voluntary retirement on February 15, 2002, after she was affected by paraplegia due to spinal cord compression. The disability was ratified by a medical board of Kottayam Medical College.

 Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/employees-undertaking-vrs-due-disability-can-reinstated-kerala-hc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more