Magnificent question of law that has cropped up for consideration in this writ petition is whether the State Government is justified in impliedly excluding married daughter of the affected/displaced family from consideration for employment under the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, as amended, on the ground of her marriage.
In an important judgement in the case of Sri Anjaneya Agro Tech Private Limited Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) [2016-VIL-63-KAR], Hon ‘ble High Court of Karnataka has ruled that assessee-dealer is entitled to claim benefit of a subsequent judgement of the court, even after completion of assessments, by filing rectification application.
It is quite vivid that the implied exclusion of daughter-in-law from the fray of consideration by the State Government without considering the fact as to whether the daughter-in-law is dependent or not is constitutionally impermissible. The Government must provide for consideration of all those persons who are dependants of the deceased Government servant.
Petitioner’s father Shri Hemlal while working as Electrical Helper in the respondent/SECL died in harness on 14.09.1994 leading to grant of monthly monetary compensation in lieu of employment on 3.1.1995 to the extent of Rs. 2000/- per month to the petitioner’s mother in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of the National Coal Wage Agreement-V (hereinafter referred to as “NCWA-V”), which she accepted without protest, but immediately thereafter on 15.6.1995 the petitioner’s mother also made a request to the SECL authorities that his son i.e. present petitioner is minor and therefore, her right to claim dependant employment for her son be kept open and intact. Her son i.e. petitioner herein became major and on 16.5.2005 the petitioner’s mother again made an application to the SECL authorities for dependant employment to the petitioner, which was not considered by the SECL authorities leading to filing of the present writ petition for dependant employment in terms of the NCWA-V for considering his claim as per policy prevailing at the time of death of the petitioner’s father.
It is held that mere reference to the power under Section 48A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act doesn’t empower the Department to attach the property of the Petitioner unless it is proved that husband had any right or interest in the property of the Petitioner.
The Hon’ble High Court, Gujarat relying upon the Order addressed by the Department to Alps Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. on the same facts and judgment in the case of Ralli Engine Ltd. Vs. Union Of India [2004 (4) TMI 590 – Gujarat High Court], held that the Appellant is permitted to pay the Excise duty foregone from the legally availed Cenvat credit account.
Assessee cannot insist upon cross-examination of all the informers, especially the ones whose statement may not be relied upon by the Department for maintaining the demand- Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India Thru. Sec. And 2 Others [2015 (12) TMI 1206 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized time and again that the Orders pursuant to a Personal Hearing either by the Court or the Tribunal or any quasi-judicial body ought to be passed expeditiously and within a reasonable time.
Claiming issuance of writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Dr. Ramesh Chandra Arya to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the office of Associate Professor (Pathology) in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, petitioner herein Kamlesh Shukla has filed this writ petition.
Since common question of law and fact is involved in the above four writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
