1. Principle Of Equal Pay For Equal Work Cannot Be Applied Merely On Basis Of Designation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation.
In this case, the court had to examine the claims made by Private Secretaries (Grade-II) ("PS-II") employed in the Eastern Central Railways (Field Office/Zonal Railways),for parity in pay with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service ("CSSS")/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service ("RBSSS")/Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT").
Interpreting the Sixth Central Pay Commission report, the court noticed that the aspect of disparity between the Secretariat and the field offices was a matter taken note of by the Commission itself while making the recommendations.
"Yet to some extent, a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations and non-Secretariat Organizations. Once these recommendations are separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make the separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations otiose. If one may say, there would have been no requirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone was to be treated on parity on every aspect", the court observed.
One of the contentions raised was that as a result of parity being given up to the level of Assistant (which would put them in the grade of Rs.4200 (later Rs.4600)), they, being one post higher, would automatically have to get one higher grade.
The bench rejected the contention noticing that the report stipulated that parity would need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant and beyond that "it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities across the board."
Source: Bar & Bench
2. Applicability Of Res Judicata Between Co-Defendants: Supreme Court Explains
Legal heirs of Late S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu filed an application before the Special Court, Hyderabad (Tribunal) under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,1982, alleging that their land grabbed by the Union of India.
The applicants alleged that their father had purchased the said land from one Shaik Ahmed. That, their father sold it to some persons, who later filed a suit against their father, Union of India, State of Andhra Pradesh.
In the said suit, the Plaintiff claimed that his vendor Shaik Ahmed and then the father of the applicants was the owner in possession of the property since purchase of the property on 20.3.1964, but the contractors of the Union of India, trespassed into the schedule property.
That their father filed written statement in which he asserted that he had no objection to the Plaintiff suit being decreed.
This suit was thus decreed on 13.8.1970 declaring the plaintiffs as title holders of the suit property. An appeal filed by the Union of India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed on 31.3.1975.
Later, before the Tribunal, the applicants contended that they are original owners of the land in question and the Government had no right or title over the property.
The Tribunal allowed the application and the High Court affirmed the order of tribunal.
Before the Apex Court, the Union of India contended that the subject matter of the first suit was only 4971.5 sq. yards which was purchased by the plaintiffs.
Thus the issue was in respect of title of the plaintiffs over the said land alone and not the entire land which was handed over to the Union by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment passed last week, examined the applicability of res judicata between co-defendants.
The court observed that the requisite conditions to apply the principle of res judicata as between co-defendants are that :
(a) there must be conflict of interest between the defendants concerned;
(b) it must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims; and
(c) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided.
It also observed that the principle of Res Judicata will not apply if the subject matter of the suit is not same as that of earlier suit.
For res judicata to apply, the matter in the former suit must have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly by the other, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta
Source: Bar &Bench
3. Kidnapped Minor Girl Untraced For 2 Months : Supreme Court Asks UP Police To Hand Over Investigation Records To Delhi Police
In a case related to the kidnapping of a 13-year old girl from Gorakhpur, who remains untraced for last two months, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Uttar Pradesh Police to hand over the investigation records to the Delhi police by tomorrow.
The Court also directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to oversee the investigation.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar was considering a habeas corpus petition filed by the missing girl's mother, who is suspecting a Delhi-resident to be the kidnapper.
The petitioner's counsel Advocate Amit Pai submitted before the bench that it is highly unfortunate that the girl has not been traced so far.
The petitioner is working as a domestic maid in Delhi, and the suspect had been trying to lure and seduce her minor daughter for long. With respect to that, she had lodged a complaint before the Malviya Nagar Police station in Delhi.
In July, while the petitioner was with her husband's family at Gorakhpur along with her daughters, the eldest daughter went missing.
According to the petition, the younger daughter overheard certain phone conversations between the suspect and her sister, where the former was threatening her with dire consequences if she did not come to his flat in Delhi. Soon after this conversation, the girl went missing.
The petitioner alleged that though a complaint was soon made before the Gorakhpur police, they did not take any prompt steps.
In this backdrop, the habeas corpus petition was filed in the Supreme Court, voicing the apprehension that the girl might be sexually abused or be trafficked into sex trade.
The bench expressed unhappiness with the failure of the UP Police in tracing the girl.
In response, the counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Advocate Anuvrat Sharma, told the bench that the state police is taking diligent steps and the investigation's pace is affected due to the inter-state ramifications.
The girl is now suspected to be in West Bengal and the police has collected the Call Detail Records (CDR), the counsel added.
At this point, the bench said that it will then hand over the investigation either to the CBI or to the Delhi Police. Additional Solicitor General RS Suri, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that they are not treating the petition as adversarial.
The bench passed a direction to the Gorakhpur police to share the entire investigation records to Malviya nagar Police(Delhi) by tomorrow.
It also directed the Delhi police commissioner to ensure further investigation to trace out the missing girl.
The matter will be considered next day after tomorrow.
Source: Bar & Bench
=======================
To help you out in your exam preparation, we suggest you take a free trial of CLAT 2022: A Comprehensive Preparation Course. Crack CLAT 2022 & Reach Your Dream NLU! So, why wait? CLAT 2022: A Comprehensive Preparation Course
Thanks
Sahi Prep Hai To Life Set Hai
Comments
write a comment