Back
PARESH UPADHYAY, A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Teachers Recruitment Board Rep. By its Member Secretary, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
J. Ravi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.09.2021 in W.P.No.27113 of 2016.)
Paresh Upadhyay, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 29.09.2021 recorded on W.P.No.27113 of 2016. This appeal is by the second respondent in writ petition – Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai. The State is the second respondent in this appeal.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant has submitted that, the action of the appellant Board was in compliance of the instructions of the State and therefore the same ought not to have been interfered with. It is further submitted that the decision of the State to terminate the services of the writ petitioner after seeking explanation from him can also not be said to be illegal and therefore that ought not to have been interfered with. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. Learned Government Advocate, standing as respondent in this appeal submitted that, the State had, on the basis of the record available with it, arrived at the conclusion that the service of the writ petitioner could not have been regularised and the decision to discontinue his service can not be s
The decision to terminate the petitioner's services and the non-payment of retirement dues, despite no termination order being passed, were deemed illegal and unsustainable.
Extension of service is a concession for the benefit of students and cannot be claimed as a right.
The court has the authority to review dismissal orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can set them aside if found to be unsustainable procedurally, in proportionality, and timing ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of pension provisions and the recognition of pension as a continuous relief/right for the employee, which sho....
Resignation from a government service results in the forfeiture of previous service, as per Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, and pension benefits cannot be based on service r....
The petitioner was not entitled to regularization of service from 01.01.2006 onwards due to government policy and lack of compliance with minimum service period for pension eligibility.
The appellant-petitioner's failure to include the challenge to the order of regularization of respondent No.7 in the earlier writ petition relinquished that claim. A challenge to the initial appointm....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
