Chhattisgarh High Court held that Denial of benefit of rehabilitation, which includes employment, to a married daughter of affected family is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
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.
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.
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.
In order to invoke Section 4 (6) (b) (ii) of the PG Act to forfeit an amount of gratuity payable to an employee, the condition precedent is that terminated employee must be convicted for an offence for the time being in force and that offence must be an offence involving moral turpitude.
1. Invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus or suitable direction to respondent No. 2/Registrar, Co-operative Societies for appropriate amendment in the service rules in the light of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition […]
1. Superb question of law involved in this batch of writ petitions is whether the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is justified in holding that “Commission Vendors” engaged by the petitioner/its predecessors-in interest for selling its food products can be considered to be its employees for the purpose of Section 2 (f) of the Employees’ Provident […]
Service conditions of the allocated employee to Chhattisgarh Upon reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh cannot be varied to his disadvantage without prior approval of Central Government. Order On Board 1. The petitioner is a duly appointed Sub Engineer working in the Water Resources Department appointed by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. […]
