| |
HIGH COURT
VRS for bank staff illegal
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, April 3
Nearly two years after the “Voluntary Retirement Scheme — 2000” was framed for permanent full-time bank employees, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today declared it illegal. Allowing 71 writ petitions filed by Mr Mohinder Pal Singh and other petitioners employed with different banks, including the Punjab and Sind Bank, State Bank of India, State Bank of Patiala, Punjab National Bank and Allahabad Bank, the Bench, comprising Mr Justice R.L. Anand and Mr Justice Amar Dutt, ordered: “The impugned orders, accepting the option for voluntary retirement, stand quashed”. The Judges ruled: “All petitioners shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. It is, however, made clear that those petitioners who have received the benefit under the scheme, including ex-gratia payment, with or without protest shall return the entire amount received by them with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of receiving the amount till the date of return. On returning the amount, the consequential benefits, regarding the payment of arrears of salary and allowances from the date of their release to the date of their reinstatement, shall be given to them by the respondents. The petitioners shall also have the benefit of continuity in service....” Regarding employees who had accepted the benefits granted under the scheme, but had not approached the court, the Judges observed: “We want to make it clear that the banks are not obliged to recall these employees for employment”. In their detailed order, the Judges concluded: “The scheme as framed is not a valid piece of subordinate legislation and has to be set aside. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the scheme is validly framed, it would be open for an employee to withdraw his option before the same has been accepted and effectively enforced”. VC’s bail extended
Mr Justice M.L. Singhal of the high court on Wednesday directed Patiala’s Judicial Magistrate (First Class) to depute his ahlmed for producing before the court complainant Saru Rana’s statement in the Punjabi University Vice-Chancellor case. Issuing the directions, the Judge also extended VC Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia’s bail for another day. Taking up a related petition filed by Saru Rana’s counsel, the Judge further ordered that he would be given an audience on behalf of the complainant. The case will now come up for further arguments tomorrow. Earlier, during the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court should go through Saru Rana’s statement recorded by the Judicial
Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC for better appreciation of the case. The VC, it may be recalled, was apprehending arrest in the case registered on February 19 initially under Sections 341, 294, 354, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC were, subsequently, added to the first information report. In her complaint, post-graduation student Saru Rana had alleged that “wrong things” were happening in the Department of Fine Arts. She had added that the VC, instead of taking action, had forced her to keep her mouth shut. Seeking directions to the state of Punjab and other respondents to release him on bail in the event of his arrest, counsel for the petitioner had contended that the VC was being implicated in the case. He had added that there was nothing in the complaint except the allegation that the VC was behind “all this” and was making wrong gestures at the complainant during university functions. Punia case plea
Mr Justice V.M. Jain on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the murder of Haryana’s former MLA Relu Ram Punia and seven others. Pronouncing the orders, the Judge observed: “The case has been thoroughly investigated by the local police and after the completion of the investigation, the challan has been submitted in the court.... Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed”. Claiming that the murder could not have been committed by Relu Ram’s 19-year-old daughter Sonia, petitioner Partap Singh, whose daughter was married to Relu Ram’s son, had earlier contended that “it was not possible for a girl to murder as many as eight persons at one time and that also with the help of an iron rod”. His counsel had asserted on the petitioner’s behalf that at least eight weapons were used in committing the brutal murders. He had added that Sonia’s confessional statement and the post-mortem report made it clear that she was trying to save the culprits. The police, he had further submitted, was not taking any action against the real culprits and was allowing the killers to destroy the evidence in order to weaken the case. The police had been bribed, he had contended. The MLA and others were allegedly murdered due to dispute among the children regarding the partition of property. A case was, subsequently, registered on August 24 last year under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Officer’s report sought
After a Ferozepore district resident, allegedly detained by the police, was found by a warrant officer in July 2000, Mr Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Wednesday directed that a copy of the officer’s report be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned for taking suitable action against those involved in matter. Seeking directions for registering a case against a station house officer and other respondents, the alleged detainee’s brother had earlier claimed that Daulat Ram was found sitting in a room in a police station. He had added that entry regarding his arrest had not been made. Claiming himself to be a supporter of the Congress and related to former-minister Hans Raj Jossan, the petitioner had earlier stated that an Akali leader was their political enemy and wanted to implicate his family in false cases. Para quashed
Allowing a petition, Mr Justice Mehtab Singh Gill on Wednesday quashed a paragraph of the government instructions “insofar as it denied the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient”. The instructions were framed on August 11, 1992. In a ruling on a petition filed by a retired under secretary in the Haryana Government, Mr Kuldeep Kumar, Mr Justice Gill directed the state of Haryana to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the petitioner as indoor and outdoor patient within a month of receiving the order’s copy. The Judge added that the amount would be calculated in accordance with the rates fixed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Declare result
Disposing of a writ petition, a Division Bench on Wednesday directed the Secretary of Punjab School Education Board to declare the result of a Class XII student belonging to Fathegarh Sahib. The Bench, comprising Mr Justice G.S. Singhvi and Mr Justice Jasbir Singh, ordered that the petitioner, Gurpreet Kaur, would deposit Rs 400 with the secretary by 10 am and by 1 pm, he would ensure that the result was declared. The petitioner had earlier contended that the Controller of Examination had, without any basis, refused to declare the result.
|
