ARINDAM LODH
Rajib Biswas – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional GA appearing for the State-respondents.
2. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned termination order dated 26.03.2018 issued by the Block Development Officer, Mohanbhog RD Block, Sepahijala District, ( Annexure 21 to the writ petition.)
3. Brief facts are as under:
The petitioner was first engaged as Gram Rozgar Sebak under MGNREGA, Bishalgarh RD Block vide order dated 11.03.2011 on contractual basis for a period of two years which may be extended time to time subject to satisfactory performance of the duties entrusted upon him. The said engagement letter dated 11.03.2010 is reproduced here-in-below:
'Government of Tripura
Office of The Block Development Officer
Office of the Programme Officer-MGNREGA
Bishalgarh RD Block, West Tripura
No. F.No. VIII-9/BDO/BLG/NREGA/09-10/77 Date: 11/03/2010
MEMORANDUM
As desired by the District Authority of the MGNREGA and in reference with the Notification vide No. F.No. VIII-9/BDO/BLG/NREGA/09-10/4473, Dt. 14.08.2009 and subsequent Notification Vide No. VIII-9(A)/BDO/BLG/NREGA/GRS/09-10/7
K.I. Shephard vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686
Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 301
Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuram vs. State of Kerala
Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 33
Special Director vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826
State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Ram Krishna & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 350
State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla
Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.