Friday, December 18, 2020

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench) - 18.12.2020 - The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Whether amount of compensation, as awarded by the Reference Court, can be released to the original claimants without furnishing any security in the Regular First Appeal by the High Court while granting/deciding the stay application?

Supreme Court held yes, 25% of the awarded compensation, along with proportionate interest and cost, be released to the claimants without furnishing any security and remaining 75% of the awarded compensation be deposited in the fixed deposit. Paragraph No. 6 of the judgment dated 18.12.2020 is reproduced below for ready reference:-

 

“6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and the fact that the lands of the original claimants have been acquired in the year 1996 and the learned Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation after a period of approximately 17 years (by now 20 years), and the original claimants are not in a position to furnish any security, while permitting the original claimants to withdraw the amount of enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court, to strike the balance and to consider the interest of both the parties and recording the statement of Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is ready and willing to deposit the entire enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court, together with interest and cost, we are of the opinion that if the original claimants are permitted to withdraw 25% of the enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Reference Court, together with proportionate interest and cost, without furnishing any security and the balance 75% of the enhanced amount of compensation, together with proportionate cost and interest, as awarded by the learned Reference Court is permitted to be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank with cumulative interest, it will meet the end of justice and take care of the interest of both the parties.”

 

 

Nayara Energy Limited versus The State of Gujarat & Ors.

S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14215-14216/2020

Date of Decision = 18.12.2020

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2020121816082951112020%20SC%20-%20NAYARA%20ENERGY%20LIMITED.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chamber,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003

anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

Mob - 9891403206

Saturday, November 7, 2020

A CRPF Officer denied Senior Time Scale because of the injuries which he sustained during the naxalites bomb blast in Chhattisgarh

A CRPF officer (Assistant Commandant) sustained injury while fighting with naxalites in Chhattisgarh – CRPF denied Senior Time Scale to the officer because of the said injuries – As per the CRPF’s Standing Orders, Senior Time Scale can only be given to those officers who are medically fit (i.e. in SHAPE-1 medical category) – Officer challenged the Standing Orders before the Delhi High Court on the ground that the Standing Orders are discriminatory, unconstitutional, ultra virus, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India – It was submitted, on behalf of the Officer, that denial of Senior Time Scale to the officer because of the injuries which he sustained during naxalites bomb blast in Chhattisgarh, is illegal as well as unjustified - Delhi High Court (Division Bench) issued notice and directed the CRPF as well as the Central Government to file replies -  Lalit Vs. CRPF & Ors., W.P.(C) 8133/2020, Date of Order = 19.10.2020.

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2020110716047447522020%20Del%20DB%20-%20LALIT.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/notejudgement.php?courtid=2

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chamber,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003

anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

Mob - 9891403206


2020 Del Single – Regularization/Confirmation of service of a yoga teacher working in Modern School, Delhi

Delhi High Court

19.10.2020

 

Regularization/confirmation of service of a yoga teacher working in Modern School, Delhi on adhoc/contractual basis for last 13 years – Permanent nature of job – Notice issued by Delhi High Court - W.P. (C) No. 8145/2020, Neeraj Dubey Vs. Modern School & Anr.; Order dated 19.10.2020.

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2020110716047432222020%20Del%20Single%20-%20NEERAJ%20DUBEY.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/notejudgement.php?courtid=2

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chamber,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003

anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

Mob - 9891403206

Thursday, August 20, 2020

Illegal reversion/demotion of 20 Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs)

Central Administrative Tribunal

17.08.2020


Illegal reversion/demotion of 20 Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) in Delhi Government Schools to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) – Teachers/Applicants are continuously working on the promotional post of PGT since 2018 till date – Reversion/demotion Order dated 06.08.2020 was not preceded by any show cause notice, charge sheet or enquiry – Violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India – Case admitted – Interim directions issued to the Government of NCT of Delhi to not to transfer the teachers/applicants on the basis of reversion order from one school to another – Further direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, to take steps to fix the responsibility for effecting the promotions – Next date of hearing is 24.08.2020.


[Pankaj Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. GNCTD, O.A. No. 1073/2020, Order dated 17.08.2020]

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2020082115979888702020%20-%20PANKAJ%20KUMAR%20SINGH.pdf

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/notejudgement.php?courtid=2


Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

Monday, August 10, 2020

American doctor wishes to treat poor Indian citizens; Medical Council of India (MCI) rejects the request on the ground that he didn’t had ‘biology’ as a subject in Class 11th

 Delhi High Court

07 August 2020

Dr. Than Singh Kehwar is an American citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (O.C.I.). He passed his Higher Secondary Examination, 1983 (i.e. Class-XI) from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. He, however, didn’t have ‘biology’ as a subject in Class 11th. He was also awarded Degree of Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) in Physics by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra.


On 01.04.2010, Dr. Kehwar successfully passed Undergraduate Level Biology Course from Community College of Allegheny Country, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A. The aforesaid undergraduate course is equivalent to studying ‘biology’ at B.Sc. level in India.


In 2010, Dr. Kehwar took admission in Doctor of Medicine Course (equivalent to MBBS in India) in International University of the Health Science (IUHS), School of Medicine, Saint Kitts and Nevis, West Indies. He successfully obtained the degree of Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) from College of Medicine and Health Sciences, St. Lucia, West Indies on 18.12.2017.


Vide letter dated 11.10.2018, Dr. Kehwar made a representation to erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) thereby requesting MCI to issue him the ‘Eligibility Certificate’ so that he can practice medicine (as an MBBS doctor) in India.


Vide Letter dated 12.06.2020, the Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India, rejected Dr. Kehwar’s request of issuance of ‘Eligibility Certificate’ under Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 on the ground - “you did not have ‘Biology’ as a subject either in High School or B.Sc. Level.”.


Being aggrieved, Dr. Kehwar preferred a writ petition [W.P. (C) 4939/2020] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court thereby seeking a direction to the MCI to issue him the ‘Eligibility Certificate’.


Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for Dr. Than Singh Kehwar, submitted that the petitioner is having better/higher qualification than studying ‘biology’ as a subject at High School level. It was submitted that the objective/intention of the petitioner of practicing medicine in India is to provide free/affordable medical services to the poor and needy citizens of India. It was also submitted that the petitioner has a vast medical experience of practicing in the USA and he wants to utilize that experience for serving the poor and needy citizens of India.


Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath, Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 07.08.2020, directed the Association of India Universities (A.I.U.) to decide whether qualifications acquired by Dr. Kehwar are equivalent to studying ‘biology’ as a subject in Higher Secondary or not and, after the decision of A.I.U., Dr. Kehwar was given liberty to represent MCI, which shall reconsider the request for issuing ‘eligibility certificate’ in view of the decision of the A.I.U.

 

Dr. Than Singh Kehwar is presently posted as Chief of Clinical Medical Physics in Departments of Radiation Oncology, Mercy Catholic Medical Center, Mercy Fitzgerald Campus, Darby, PA 19023, Mercy Philadelphia Campus, Philadelphia, PA 19143 & Thomas Jefferson University Cancer Centers, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

[Than Singh Kehwar versus Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 4939/2020, Date of decision = 07.08.2020]

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2020081015970531602020%20Del%20DB%20-%20THAN%20SINGH%20KEHWAR.pdf


https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/notejudgement.php?courtid=2

Monday, June 22, 2020

Waiting List (Reserve Panel) [Assistant Teacher (Urdu), Post Code = 60/14]


CAT directed the DSSSB to not to fill any OBC vacancy with any candidate who is less meritorious than the applicant. [OA No. 806/2020; Anjum Vs. DSSSB & Anr.; Order dated 15.06.2020; Central Administrative Tribunal]





Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003
Mob – 9891403206

Monday, June 8, 2020

Teachers on probation in Private Schools in Delhi cannot be terminated without approval from the Director of Education – Supreme Court of India


Interpreting Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in DAV College Managing Committee Vs. Surender Rana and Ors. (MANU/SC/0472/2011, Civil Appeal No. 2719 of 2007, decided on: 03.02.2011) held that the termination of service of a probationer without prior approval from the Director of Education is illegal.

DAV College Managing Committee (supra), was decided in the year 2011 but assumes significance today in view of recent Supreme Court judgment in Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School and Ors. Vs. J.A.J. Vasu Sena and Ors. (Decided On: 21.08.2019; MANU/SC/1139/2019, 2019 (11) SCALE 353). In Durgabai Deshmukh (supra), Supreme Court held that the employees of Private Schools in Delhi remain on probation even after expiry of the probationary period. For confirmation in service, a specific order from school is required and, in the absence of any such order, the employee continues to remain on probation even after working for years in the school.

Conjoint reading of both the judgments, i.e. DAV College Managing Committee (supra) as well as Durgabai Deshmukh (supra), makes it clear that although an employee in a private school in Delhi continues to remain on probation even after expiry of his probationary period but, at the same time, his/her services cannot be terminated without prior approval from the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
483, Block – 2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003
Mob – 9891403206



Sunday, June 7, 2020

Teachers/employees of Private Schools in Delhi remain on probation even after expiry of the probationary period (no deemed confirmation or automatic regularization of service) – Supreme Court of India


Teachers/Employees of private schools in Delhi are governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules made thereunder. Interpreting Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School and Ors. Vs. J.A.J. Vasu Sena and Ors. (Decided On: 21.08.2019; MANU/SC/1139/2019, 2019 (11) SCALE 353) held that the employees of Private Schools in Delhi remain on probation even after expiry of the probationary period. For confirmation in service, a specific order from the school is required and, in the absence of any such order, the employee continues to remain on probation even after working for years in the school.

Prior to Durgabai Deskhmukh’s judgment (supra), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in catena of judgments [Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr. in W.P.(C) No.8652/2011 decided on 25.7.2013, Army Public School and Anr. Vs. Narendra Singh Nain and Anr. in W.P.(C) No.1439/2013 decided on 30.8.2013, etc.] had declared that the employees of private schools in Delhi become permanent (deemed confirmed) after completion of 3 years of service. Durgabai Deskhmukh’s judgment (supra), in substance, has overruled all the Delhi High Court judgments which provided for the deemed confirmation (automatic regularization) of the teachers/employees of private schools in Delhi.

Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
483, Block – 2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003
Mob – 9891403206