AI Overview...
-
Fence Sitter - Typically, a fence-sitter is someone who delays or avoids asserting their rights or claims, often leading to denial of benefits. Courts have consistently held that fence-sitters cannot invoke judgments to claim benefits after a significant delay, emphasizing the need for timely action. Benefit claims by fence-sitters are generally rejected to maintain fairness and prevent abuse of judicial remedies Coal India Limited through its Chairman VS Rekha Pandey, wife of Sri Binay Kumar Pandey - Jharkhand, Karunakar Sahoo VS State of Odisha - Orissa, Prayag Narayan, son of Late Gondorin Mahato VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Bhushan Lal Sharma, S/o. Shri Dule Ram Sharma VS State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (IPH) - Himachal Pradesh, DINADAYAL RABHA VS STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati, Puran Mal VS Birla Textiles Mills - Himachal Pradesh, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED VS JAYAN JOHN - Kerala, Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs Shri M.I. Kureshi - Madhya Pradesh, State Of Rajasthan VS Abdul Gaffar S/o Jaan Mohd - Rajasthan, Haradhan Dutta VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta.
-
Delay and Laches - Courts have underscored that benefits cannot be extended to fence-sitters who delay claiming their rights beyond a reasonable period. Such delays are viewed as acquiescence or waiver, disqualifying them from claiming benefits based on judgments or legal provisions Karunakar Sahoo VS State of Odisha - Orissa, Prayag Narayan, son of Late Gondorin Mahato VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Bhushan Lal Sharma, S/o. Shri Dule Ram Sharma VS State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (IPH) - Himachal Pradesh, DINADAYAL RABHA VS STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati, Puran Mal VS Birla Textiles Mills - Himachal Pradesh.
-
Legal Principles - The principle that a fence-sitter cannot benefit from judgments is reinforced by judicial criticism of delay tactics and the doctrine of laches. The courts stress that benefits should be granted only to those who act promptly and in accordance with procedural requirements Coal India Limited through its Chairman VS Rekha Pandey, wife of Sri Binay Kumar Pandey - Jharkhand, Prayag Narayan, son of Late Gondorin Mahato VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs Shri M.I. Kureshi - Madhya Pradesh.
-
Specific Cases - Several judgments specify that employees who are fence-sitters, i.e., those who delay or do not exercise their rights timely, are not entitled to benefits such as gratuity, pension, or regularization, especially after long delays or lapses Coal India Limited through its Chairman VS Rekha Pandey, wife of Sri Binay Kumar Pandey - Jharkhand, Karunakar Sahoo VS State of Odisha - Orissa, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED VS JAYAN JOHN - Kerala, Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs Shri M.I. Kureshi - Madhya Pradesh.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Courts consistently affirm that fence-sitters cannot claim benefits derived from judgments or statutory provisions if they delay action beyond a reasonable period. This principle aims to uphold fairness, prevent misuse of judicial remedies, and encourage employees to assert their rights promptly. Therefore, an employee classified as a fence-sitter is generally ineligible for benefits such as gratuity, pension, or regularization if they fail to act timely, especially after significant delays Coal India Limited through its Chairman VS Rekha Pandey, wife of Sri Binay Kumar Pandey - Jharkhand, Karunakar Sahoo VS State of Odisha - Orissa, Prayag Narayan, son of Late Gondorin Mahato VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Bhushan Lal Sharma, S/o. Shri Dule Ram Sharma VS State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (IPH) - Himachal Pradesh, DINADAYAL RABHA VS STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati, Puran Mal VS Birla Textiles Mills - Himachal Pradesh, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED VS JAYAN JOHN - Kerala, Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs Shri M.I. Kureshi - Madhya Pradesh, State Of Rajasthan VS Abdul Gaffar S/o Jaan Mohd - Rajasthan, Haradhan Dutta VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta.
Search Results for "Fence Sitter Cannot Get Benefit Employee"
2020 0 Supreme(Jhk) 46 • India - Jharkhand
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Labour and Industrial Law - Promotion - Fence-sitter cannot be allowed to get benefit of judgment by invoking ... be said to be a fence-sitter - Order passed by Single Judge upheld. ... is given relief by Court, all other identical set of persons need to be treated alike by extending the benefit - Position in seniority ... There is no denial of the fact that fence-sitter cannot be allowed to #HL_....
2017 0 Supreme(Ori) 654 • India - Orissa
SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
extend the benefits to the petitioners within a reasonable period. ... the authorities to extend the benefits to the petitioners within a reasonable period. ... They argued that they should be treated similarly to others who had received the benefits. ... ... There is no denial about the fact that the fence sitter cannot be allowed to get the benefit of judgment by invoking the jurisdiction of court of law after lapse of long delay. ... take the ple....
2020 0 Supreme(Jhk) 442 • India - Jharkhand
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
record is not traceable, writ petitioner/employee cannot be held responsible - It is incumbent upon competent authority to act in ... Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 7(3-A) and 8 - Custodian of service record is employer and if service ... It is also not in dispute that the fence sitter cannot be allowed to get the benefit of judgment by invoking the jurisdiction of Court of law after lapse of long delay, this principle is subject to well r....
2022 0 Supreme(HP) 89 • India - Himachal Pradesh
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
sitter - Therefore, benefit of judgment passed by learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by appellant & Sh. ... several other categories were also advertised in different other departments under same advertisement - Having held this, Court cannot ... benefit of judgment delivered in his writ petition - Appellant's grievance now projected is that Sh. ... Anand Blouria was a fence sitter. The torch was ignited and carried by the appellant Sh. Bhushan Lal Sharma and Sh. Ajay Sharma ....
2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 280 • India - Gauhati
AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN
cannot claim that benefit of judgment rendered in case of similarly situated persons be extended to them – Petition dismissedCondo nation of delay – Employees – However Division Bench observed that no reply had been filed by State ... respondents nor any rational criteria shown for classifying employees - In that view of matter direction was made to Secretary to ... Having accepted and enjoyed the VRS benefits, they cannot be allowed to turn around, either to disturb or challenge the s....
2019 0 Supreme(HP) 1027 • India - Himachal Pradesh
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
employed in industries subject to relocation, and the principle of extending the benefit of a court judgment to all identically ... of the workmen employed in these industries. ... situated persons should be treated alike by extending the same benefit, subject to exceptions of laches, delays, and acquiescence ... On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondent that the judgment in LPA was a judgment in rem and, therefore, the petitioners being fence-sitters canno....
2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 166 • India - Kerala
S. V. BHATTI, BASANT BALAJI
Employees Service Rules 1986 - Rule 43 - Writ Appeal - Wages - Age of retirement - Superannuation - Equality before Law - employees ... - Retired employees are entitled to reliefs as granted by judgment under appeal - Court do not see any reason to take a different ... Court may hasten to add that while agreeing with retired employees' main argument, all relevant circumstances are noted in judgment ... The pension fund scheme envisages pension contribution by the employee/employer up t....
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1486 • India - High Court of Madhya Pradesh
SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN, J
11, 19, 21) ... ... (B) Limitation - The Court found that the application for gratuity cannot ... So far as the arguments raised with regard to the respondent employee being fence sitter, is concerned, that provision to be read along with the mandatory provisions of Section 7(2) of Payment of Gratuity Act which casts duty on the employer to pay gratuity irrespective of application to be filed ... It is argued that the Supreme Court has strongly criticized and deprecated in practice of fence....
2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 122 • India - Rajasthan
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, MADAN GOPAL VYAS
The court emphasized that the benefit of regularization cannot be granted from the date prior to regular appointment through regular ... The State argued that the benefit of regularization cannot be granted from the date prior to regular appointment through regular ... The court also emphasized that the benefit of regularization cannot be granted from the date prior to regular appointment through ... cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rend....
2017 0 Supreme(Cal) 453 • India - Calcutta
ARIJIT BANERJEE
The regulations were framed for the benefit of SBSTC employees, but a decision was taken in 2003 not to implement them due to low ... argued that petitioners did not exercise their option within the stipulated time, causing inordinate delay, and that they were fence-sitters ... SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' PENSION REGULATIONS, 2002 - PENSIONARY BENEFITS - IMPLEMENTATION - EMPLOYEES ... The present writ petitioners cannot take t....
Filter by Legal Phrase
