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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more