Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Shafiq Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Dehradun – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. All the petitioners were working as drivers/conductors in the respondent no.1/Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (“UTC”). While on service due to health reasons, they were declared unfit for the posts which they were holding. They were assigned some other work, on which they continued. But, suddenly on 01.09.2022, the UTC directed that all the drivers/conductors should work on the post at which they were appointed. They should not be assigned any other duties. On 09.09.2022 at the strength of Rule 37 of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Rules, 2015 (“the 2015 Rules”), the UTC informed all its Divisional Managers that all the drivers/conductors, except those who sustained injury while on duty, be compulsorily retired. Pursuant to it, all the petitioners were given three months’ notice with the direction
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the distinction made for compulsory retirement based on injuries sustained during on duty or off duty was discriminatory and violated Article ....
The court established that the acceptance of monetary benefits under duress does not preclude the right to seek alternative employment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Point of Law : Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an emp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such order....
The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant under FR 56(j) must be made in public interest, and judicial scrutiny is limited to cases of mala fide exercise of power or lack of evidence. ....
The assessment of an employee's entire service record is crucial for deciding on compulsory retirement, and the order must be based on proper grounds and subjective satisfaction of the authority.
The court held that compulsory retirement must be based on a comprehensive review of performance, not merely on pending allegations, ensuring due process is followed in such decisions.
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
