slcdailylaw
  • Home
  • Topic Search
  • Advanced Search
  • Citation Search
  • Bookmarks
  • Login
  1. Home
  2. Latest Cases
(1) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}
Murder

A. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—Section 302—Murder—Appeal Against Conviction—Conviction based on ocular and medical evidence was set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in eyewitness testimony with site plan, inconsistencies regarding blood stains, and issues in weapon recovery cast doubt on reliability. [Para 30] B. Evidence—Appreciation of Evidence—Court must aim to ascertain the truth—Evidence may be wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or partially reliable; the latter requires careful scrutiny and corroboration—Contradictions in statements weaken credibility; quality of evidence outweighs mere quantity. [Paras 17, 20] C. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—Section 302—Murder—Recovery of Weapon—Weapon allegedly used in offence reco...

(2) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}

A. Railways Act, 1989—Section 124A—Bona Fide Passenger—Absence of Ticket—The mere absence of a ticket with the deceased does not automatically bar a claim for compensation if the deceased was a bona fide passenger—The claimant bears the initial burden of proof, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railway to disprove the claim. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14) B. Railways Act, 1989—Section 124A—Untoward Incident—Death Due to Falling from Train—A police report under Section 174 Cr.P.C—stating that the deceased died due to falling from a running train is significant—In the absence of contrary evidence from the Railway, this finding supports entitlement to compensation. (Paras 12, 16) C. Railways Act, 1989—Section 124A—Ti...

Disposed of
(3) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}
Validity

A. Pension Regulations, 1990—Withdrawal and Retrospective Effect—The Rajasthan Financial Corporation’s notification dated 09.06.2020 attempting to withdraw pension regulations retrospectively from 21.06.2004 is illegal and arbitrary—Prior court rulings had already held such withdrawal impermissible, and the RFC cannot reopen settled legal issues—Action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. B. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14 & 16—Equality and Equal Opportunity—Retrospective withdrawal of pension benefits infringes vested or accrued rights of employees, amounting to unequal treatment and denial of equality of opportunity, and is constitutionally impermissible. C. Judicial Pronouncements—Finality and Legislative Action—RFC’s attempt to nullify prio...

Disposed of
(4) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}
Writ petition, Eligibility

A. Administrative Law—Service Law—Selection Scale Eligibility—Ad hoc appointees are not entitled to benefits of selection scale from the date of their ad hoc appointment; such benefits are reserved for employees appointed regularly in accordance with recruitment rules. B. Administrative Law—Service Law—Regularisation and Benefits—Time-bound pay and other service benefits do not accrue to ad hoc, daily-wage, or work-charged employees unless explicitly provided by the governing rules. C. Administrative Law—Service Law—Supreme Court Guidance—In State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Surendra Mohnot & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified that stagnation benefits accrue only from the date of regularisation, as per government orders dated 25th January 1992 and 17th February 1998. D. Adm...

Dismissed
(5) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}

A. Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923—Section 30—Appeal and Interest on Award—Liability of an insurance company to pay interest on a compensation award is governed by the terms of the insurance policy; if the policy expressly excludes interest, the insurer is not liable. B. Contract Law—Insurance Policy Terms—The insurer’s obligations, including payment of interest, are contractual and determined solely by the terms agreed between the employer and the insurance company. C. Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923—Employer’s Liability for Interest—Where the insurance policy excludes liability for interest, the responsibility to pay interest on the award rests with the employer, not the insurance company. ...

(6) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}
Service Law, Writ jurisdiction, Compassionate appointment

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Laches and Delay—A claim for compassionate appointment filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay is not maintainable, as delay defeats the scheme’s purpose of providing immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee. B. Service Law—Compassionate Appointment—Object and Purpose—Compassionate appointment is an exceptional measure, intended solely to provide immediate assistance to the family of a government employee who dies while in service, leaving dependents in sudden financial distress. C. Service Law—Delay in Claim—The entitlement to compassionate appointment depends on the immediacy of need; applications made after a reasonable period lapses lose the core purpose of the scheme and cannot be granted. D. Servic...

Disposed of
(7) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 21 Rule 32(5)—Enforcement of Injunction Decree—The Executing Court is empowered to take all necessary steps to ensure effective compliance of a decree of injunction—Where the judgment-debtor acts in defiance of the decree and interferes with the rights of the decree-holder, the Court may adopt appropriate measures to secure obedience to the decree. B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 21 Rule 32(5)—Restoration of Possession—If the judgment-debtor wilfully violates a prohibitory injunction and dispossesses the decree-holder, the Executing Court may order restoration of possession or removal of obstruction so that the decree is not rendered ineffective. C. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 47 & Order 21 Rule 32—Scope of Executing Court—...

Disposed of
(8) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}

A. Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008—Rule 26—Pay Protection—Employees of institutions such as Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, registered under the Societies Registration Act, are not Government employees—Service rendered in such autonomous bodies cannot be treated as Government service and therefore does not entitle the employee to pay protection or pensionary benefits upon appointment in State Government service. B. Service Law—Government Servant—Meaning—A “Government servant” refers to a person appointed by the Government whose service conditions are governed by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and whose salary is paid from the Consolidated Fund—Employees of autonomous or society-registered bodies do not fall within this definition. C. ...

(9) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Civil Contempt—Wilful Disobedience—For establishing contempt, there must be clear and wilful disobedience of a specific direction of the Court—Where the order does not stipulate any particular place of posting or joining, insistence by the employee on joining only at a preferred location cannot amount to non-compliance with the Court’s order—Absence of a definite direction regarding place of posting negates the allegation of wilful disobedience. B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Abuse of Process of Court—Filing a contempt petition merely because the petitioner insists on being posted at a particular place, despite the Court order not granting such relief and despite being directed to join duties elsewhere, amounts to misuse of the judicial process—Such co...

(10) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - {JAIPUR BENCH}
Writ petition

A. University Act, 2012—Section 11A—Removal of Vice-Chancellor—Statutory Safeguards and Natural Justice—Suspension of Vice-Chancellor pending enquiry merges with the final removal order—There is no requirement of a separate hearing before suspension; what is essential is that the Vice-Chancellor is afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations before final removal—Reasonable opportunity is contextual and does not equate to a full departmental enquiry applicable to ordinary employees. B. University Act, 2012—Grounds for Removal and Scope of Enquiry—Removal can be based on willful omission, abuse of powers, irregular payments, violation of statutory provisions, non-compliance with government directions, and administrative lapses affecting institutional governance—Inq...

Disposed of
slcdailylaw

Tomar Publication

561, Sec-2, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut-250004

0121 3561932, +91 9458 5523 61

tomarpublication999@gmail.com

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© SLC Daily law all right reserved.

Cookies Required

Please enable cookies in your browser settings to continue.