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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more