How are service benefits like salary, promotions and rank within the organization protected?

Mandatory Reservations

• Ratheesh Babu vs. UGC
• Dilip Baruah vs. State of Assam and Ors
• R Manoj Kumar vs. University of Hyderabad Rep by its Registrar
• Dalbir Singh Bagga vs. State of Punjab and Ors
• Ram Sevak Tripathi vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors
• Vinod Kumar Rai vs. Public service Commission, Allahabad
• Daya Ram Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another
• Nanjala Bayamma vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Anr
• Jaswant Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another
• Anjali Arora vs. National Thermal Power Corporation

Reservation only for those who do not Qualify on Merit

• All India Confederation Of The Blind vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
• Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors vs. All India Confederation of the Blind

Acceptable Qualifications

• Bharat Lal Meena vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi

Definition of the Term "During Service"

• SK Maulana vs. APSRTC
• DTC vs. Rajbir Singh
• Union of India & Ors vs. Mohd Mobin Khan & Anr
• Satyabir Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &Anr

Definition of Reinstatement

• Rajbir Singh vs. AJS Sawhney

Reinstatement when Disability is Acquired During Service

• Md Jani Miya vs. APSRTC
• KV Ranga Reddy vs. DIG Border Security Force
• Dharambir vs. DTC
• Ramphal vs. DTC
• KJ Dhulia vs. State of Gujarat
• Baljeet Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• DTC vs. Balram Sharma
• Sulochana vs. APSRTC, Hyd and Another
• Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Rajbir Singh and Sadh Ram
• Syed Sha Musebulla Alvi vs. Secretary, General Administrative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
• APSRTC vs. M V Ramana Rao
• Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. the Presiding officer, Principal Labour Court
• Ravichandran vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd
• University of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Kumar Goel
• A John Peter vs. Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
• Virender Kumar Gupta vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• Hari Om Singh vs. Union of India and Ors
• Virender Kumar Gupta vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• Kunal Singh vs. Union of India
• Sadh Ram vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• LIC vs. Chief Commissioner for disabilities, Harish Chander Dabral and Dr.Uma Tuli, Managing Director, Amar Jyoti Trust
• Shri Sunil Kumar vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• Anand Bihari & others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & anr
• Krishan Chander and PO Bhainswal Kalan vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Gopal Motambhaia Patel
• Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Ganpat Singh
• S. Rajendran vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Traffic and the Commissioner of Police
• J. Benjamin vs. the Management of Bharat Earth Movers Limited, Kolar Gold Field
• Narain Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr
• Mohd Yasin Ansari, Gyanendra Singh, Inder Deo, Ishu Narayan, Anil Singh and Hasib Ahmed Islam vs. Union of India and Ors
• Shri Jagdish Prasad vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & the Depot Manager
• Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sh. Himmat Singh and Others

Compensation does not bar Claim for Reinstatement

• Kuldeep Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• Rajamani vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. by its General Manager

Reinstatement in Special Circumstances

• Dr Kanshi Ram Anand vs. the State of U.P. and another

Posthumous Reinstatement

• Mahipal Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr

Payment of Minimum Wages

• Delhi Administration through Directorate of Social Welfare vs. Presiding Officer

Pay scale once fixed cannot be altered

• Delhi Transport Corporation through Regional Manager vs. Ishwar Singh, Batch No. 15664 S/o Shri Dalip Singh, The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal –I and The Government of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary Labour and Human Welfare Ministry
• Union of India & Others vs. Hari Ram Shukla & Others

Scope of Government Organizations under Purview of the PWD Act

• MV Ramana Rao vs. APSRTC

Special Concessions

• R. Govindarajan vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd
• V.K. Bhasin vs. State Bank of Patiala and Ors
• Rakesh Kumar vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Others
• Sunil Raosaheb Narke vs. Air India and Anr
• Vikram Trisal vs. Union of India and Ors
• Sandhya Jain, Rajana Purwar, Satyendra Pal Singh, Smt.Anjana Mishra (Dixit), Jyotsana Bhatnagar vs. State of U.P & Others
• Irrigation Development Employees Association & Ors vs. Government of A.P. & Ors
• T. Raja Rama Mohan Rao vs. Income-tax Officer
• Shri Suresh Kumar Tiwari vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors
• D. Saibaba vs. Bar Council of India

Instances when Compassionate Employment is Granted

• Uppala Venkat vs. Divisional Railway Manager (P), South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Others

Employment to a Family Member only if Declared ‘Disabled’

• Lal Chand vs. State of Haryana and others

Reduction of Posts only with Valid Reason

• Shruti Kalra vs University of Delhi

Creation of a Supernumerary Post

• Lance Naik Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India
• K Kamatchi vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madhurai (Division IV) Ltd. and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pvt, Kumbam Branch
• L. Loganathan vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Express State Corporation and the General Manager (Amdn), Tamil Nadu Express State Transport Corporation

Continuation of Service till the age of Superannuation

• Tarlochan Singh Aujla vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• Rama vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors
• Shivaji S/o Vishwanath Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors

Instances when Special Compensations are Granted

• Rajanna vs. Union of India

Non Discrimination in Service

• Pradeep Jagannath Talekar and Others vs. Union of India and Ors
• Nand Kumar Jivan Dalvi vs. Union of India through the Director General, ESIC, New Delhi and Anr
• Jai Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Others
• Orissa Association for the Blind and others vs. State of Orissa and others
• Ghanakeshi Sahu vs. Director, Elementary Education, Orissa
• Smt Omvati Kalshan vs. Delhi Development Authority

Government Appointments subject to State Rules

• Binu vs. State of Kerala

Alternative Employment on Acquiring Disability

• O.P. Sharma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr
• Md. Sukur Miya and Anr. vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited and Ors.
• P. Thangamarimuthu vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai (Division-1) Ltd., through its Managing Director
• Zammel Ahmed vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors
• Rajinder Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors
• Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Hanitsinh Thakubha Parmar
• E. Subramani vs. the General Manager, (Administration) Puratchi Thalaivar MGR Transport Corporation
• Shree Satish Prabhakar Padhye vs. Union of India (UOI) through the Secretary Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative Department) and Ors
• Vijender Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• L.Loganathan vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Express State Transport Corporation and the General Manager (Admn), Tamil Nadu Express State Transport Corpn

Pay Scale to be protected in Alternative Employment

• Narendra Kumar Chandla vs. State of Haryana and Ors
• Satya Prakash Meena vs. Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai and Anr
• P.Pardhasarthy vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors
• K. Satyanandam, Peon vs. Chairman, Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Provide Compensation or give Alternative Jobs

• Rameshwar Dass and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others
• Jaswant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab

Matters related to Promotion

• Union of India and Others vs. Hari Ram Shukla and Others
• M. Krishna Das vs. the Chairman, Railway Board and Ors

Matters Related to the Teaching Staff of Special Institutions

• Surekha d/o Nagorao Pawar (Kumari) and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors

Statutory Authority to Exercise Impartial Discretion in Retrenchment

• U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Mohd Ismail and others

Follow Procedure for Termination

• Captain Virendra Kumar vs. Union of India

Entitlement to Earned Leave on Acquiring Disability during Service

• Devki Nandan (Dr.) vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors

Implementing Reservation

• Sayed Dasthagiri Pasha vs. Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar
• State of Rajasthan and Anr vs. Shiv Kumar Singh

Directions to Seek Relief under the Act

• N. Siva Kumar vs. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Others

How are the provisions of the PWD Act interpreted?

Three percent Reservation to be Equally Distributed

• Perambaduru Murali Krishna and Ors vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors

Exemption from the Act to be Notified

• RK Arora vs. Union of India

Three percent reservation does not include Merit Qualifiers

• All India Confederation Of The Blind vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Applicability of the Provisions of the Act

• UOI through G.M. Western Railway vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain
• Union of India vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain

How are employment opportunities for the disabled created and protected?

Special privileges to be accorded to the Disabled

• Shri Niaz Ahmad vs. Union of India & Others

Vacancies for Reserved Categories to be duly filled up

• Anthosh Kumar Panigrahi vs. P. Narayanan, Chief General Manager, HRMD Nabard and Ors

Identify Posts for Reservation

• Dr. Honey Arya vs. Punjab University
• Ray John Varghese vs. State of Kerala

Certain posts cannot be denied on ground of Disability

• Ramesh Chander vs. R.L. Chugh, P.O, Industrial Tribunal

What are the limitations of the Act?

Alternate Employment not Provided

• Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

All Charges to be Substantiated

• Capt. Rachpal Singh vs. Union of India
• Lt. Col. Jagannath Singh Pathania (Retd.) vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr

Concessions Granted only when Disability is over Forty Percent

• Union of India and Others vs. KP Singh

Meet Basic Merit Requirements

• Prakash Chandra vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Ors
• S.D. Sridhar vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors
• Smt. G. Mallicka vs. the Municipal Council and Ors.

Recruitment Rules Governing a Post must be Honored

• The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Personnel and Vigilance, representing Union of India (UOI) and the Deputy Commissioner of Custom (P and V) vs. Smt. T.E. Radha, Sundaraj Gugan, Examiner and the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
• Sarika vs. State of U.P and Ors

Reservation in Certain Services not to exceed 50 percent of total posts

• State of U.P and Anr vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors

Sub Categorization in Disability Category not Allowed

• K.V. Ramana vs. the Director, O/o Director General of Audit (Defence Services) and Ors

Claim for Employment on Compassionate Grounds, to be made within a Specified Time

• G. Mallikharjuna Rao vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and another

Section 47 not applicable to Private Bodies

• Hem Chand vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors

Decision of Stipulated Body Final in Judiciary Transfers

• Registrar General of High Court and Anr vs. Chitra Biswas and Ors

UGC Decision Cannot be Interfered with in Certain Matters

• All India Confederation of the Blind vs. Union of India and Anr

What are the limitations to the privileges accorded to the disabled?

Equality before Law

• Srikrishan Gupta vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

What conditions must be satisfied before a Writ Petition is filed?

Legal Procedures to be Followed

• Rajesh Kumar vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Ors
• The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division IV) Ltd. vs. P. Ellappan
• Pushpa Kumari and Ors vs. GAIL (India) and Anr

Reservation in Certain Services not to exceed 50 percent of total posts

State of U.P and Anr vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors

Filed under: Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependants of Freedom Fighters
and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993
Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backwards Classes) Act, 1994
Appellant: State of U.P and Anr
Respondent: Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors
Citation: AIR2005SC658, 2005 (1) AWC 363 (SC), 2005(1)ESC96, [2005(1)JCR147(SC], 2005(1)JKJ [SC], JT2005(1)SC150,2005(2) SLJ 386 (SC), (2005)2 UPLBEC1285
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur and A.K. Mathur

Facts

In the year 1997, the State Public Service Commission, pursuant to the requisition made by the State Government on the advice of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, advertised 93 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service.

Keeping in view the provisions for reservation, mandated by the U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Departments of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act 1993 and U.P. Public Service (Reservations for Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes) Act 1994, certain posts were reserved.

To the extent of the percentage of reservation, as contemplated by the two Acts mentioned above, there was no controversy. However, a controversy arose on the application of the percentage as against the total number of posts. Pawan Kumar Tiwari belonged to general category. 46 selected candidates in the general category were appointed. There were 3 candidates in the waiting list.

He was at the top of the waiting list but was denied appointment. Aggrieved he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was allowed directing the State of U.P. to issue a letter of appointment to him. The State then filed this appeal against the order of the High Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the rule of rounding off the reservation percentage, according to which if the decimal part was one-half or more, its value would be increased to one and if it was less than half then its value would be ignored. Therefore, 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done.

If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection in the general category, Pawan was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment. Moreover the total number of vacancies was 93 and consequent upon the allocation of reservation and calculation done by the State, the number of reserved seats would be 47, leaving only 46 available for general category candidates.

Meaning thereby, the reservation would exceed 50% which would be unconstitutional. It was stated that the total number of reserved seats could not exceed 46 out of 93. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Public interest litigation

Public interest litigation

"Public interest Litigation", in simple words, means, litigation filed in a court of law, for the protection of "Public Interest", such as pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, constructional hazards etc.

Public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or in any act. It has been interpreted by judges to consider the intent of public at large. Although, the main and only focus of such litigation is only "Public Interest" there are various areas where a Public Interest Litigation can be filed. For e.g.

• Violation of basic human rights of the poor

• Content or conduct of government policy

• Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty.

• Violation of religious rights or other basic fundamental rights.

When can a public interest litigation be filed?

A public interest litigation can be filed only in a case where "Public Interest" at large is effected. Merely because, only one person is effected by state inaction is not a ground for Public interest litigation

These are some of the possible areas where a PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION can be filed.

• Where a factory / industrial unit is causing air pollution, and people nearly are getting effected.

• Where, in an area / street there are no street lights, causing inconvenience to commuters

• .Where some "Banquet Hall" plays a loud music, in night causing noise pollution.

• Where some construction company is cutting down trees, causing environmental pollution.

• Where poor people, are affected, because of state government's arbitrary decision to impose heavy "tax".

• For directing the police / Jail authorities to take appropriate decisions in regards to jail reforms, such as segregation of convicts, delay in trial, production of under trial before the court on remand dates.

• For abolishing child labor, and bonded labor.

• Where rights of working women are affected by sexual harassment.

• For keeping a check on corruption and crime involving holders of high political officer.

• For maintaining Roads, Sewer etc in good conditions.

• For removal of Big Hoarding and signboard from the busy road to avoid traffic problem.

• Recently a Public Interest Litigation has been filed, for directing the "Delhi Traffic Police" to stop the method of sending challans to address by post, as it is being misused.

Loan recovery firm manager held

The Crime Branch on Wednesday arrested the manager of a recovery agency, along with two agents, for harassing a doctor living in Sarita Vihar. The doctor who was harassed reportedly did not even take a loan.

The police said the accused wanted to recover the loan amount from someone else in the area. When they did not find the person they were looking for, they went to the complainant's residence, who lived few blocks away, and threatened him with dire consequences and asked him to repay the loan amount.

The incident took place on Sunday at the Sarita Vihar residence of Dr S.S. Chahar, a senior government functionary. The police arrested the three accused — Nazir Hussain (22), Mahender Singh (22) and Vikas Mete, the agency manager.

Hussain, one of the accused had gone to look for one Surender Singh, a resident of Sarita Vihar. “When he did not find any person by the name of Surender Singh at the address concerned, he asked neighbours for any person living in the area with that name.

“The doctor’s initials matched with the name of the person he was looking for and he went to his house to seek the loan amount from him,” said Satyendra Garg, additional commissioner of police (crime).

The police said the three men were employed with Legal Eye, a Madangir-based recovery agency. They said the agency was working for a multinational bank and the men had gone to recover a loan amount of Rs 3.5 lakh.

The accused did not listen even when the doctor said he had not taken any loan. “The doctor approached us with through the helpline,” said Garg.

Banks not liable to pay interest on export subsidy: SC

The Supreme Court has held that banks are not liable to pay interest tax on subsidies they get from the RBI for giving concessional loans to exporters.

Dismissing an appeal filed by the income-tax department recently, a bench headed by Justice S H Kapadia has upheld the Delhi High Court judgement, which said that the compensatory interest received as subsidy by Punjab National Bank from the RBI for giving concessional loans to exporters did not amount to interest tax chargeable under the Interest Tax Act, 1979.

The RBI gives export subsidy to banks to make good their losses due to extending export credit at a lower rate of interest.

PNB had received export subsidy of more than Rs 9 lakh for assessment years 1985-87 under the Export Credit (Interest Subsidy) Scheme, 1968. The Assessing Officer had taxed it on the grounds that any amount received by way of export subsidy can only be regraded as such when it was directly paid to an exporter.

According to the department, the export subsidy PNB received was essentially in the nature of interest defined under Section 2(7) of the Act and hence is liable to be included in its income for paying tax.

Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran argued that the money the bank received can be regraded as export subsidy in the hands of an assessee only when the latter directly engaged in exports and received the subsidy in the course of its export business.

"Since the assessee is a bank and not engaged in any export activity, but is essentially engaged in (the) banking business, nor has rececived the said sum from (the) RBI for utilisation of any export activity as an exporter, the same cannot be regarded or characterised as an export subsidy as to take out the same from the taxing net," the petition stated.