Top News Headlines 29th Dec 2021: Employees Appointed On Compassionate Grounds And Those On Regular Basis To Be Paid The Same

Employees Appointed On Compassionate Grounds And Those On Regular Basis To Be Paid The Same: SC

• A Bench of the Hon’ble SC in the case of State of UP vs. Aishwarya Pandey has stated that there cannot be two different pay scales for an employee employed on compassionate grounds and one appointed on a regular basis.
• The Court further said that as soon as someone is appointed to a particular post, that person is entitled to the pay scale of that post, and this holds true even if the person is employed on compassionate grounds.
• The instant SLP was filed by the State of UP against the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad HC where the HC had granted the respondent's writ petition directing the authorities to pay Rs.8000- 13,000 pay scale to the employee who was appointed on compassionate grounds.
• It was the petitioner’s contention that the aforementioned pay scale was available to the post of Officer on Special Duty, a post which was required to be filled by the Public Service Commission. The State could not have filled the same, and since the compassionate appointment was done by the State, the respondent was therefore placed in the lower pay scale, which was Rs.6500- 10,500/-, lower than the pay scale required to be paid to an Officer on Special Duty.
• The Court did not find any merit in the petitioner’s contention. There was no dispute, according to the learned Court, that the respondent was appointed on the post of Officer on Special Duty, even if it was on compassionate grounds. However, the issue was that she was placed in the lower pay scale, which could not be done because employees on the same post have to be paid the same pay scale, and it does not matter if they were appointed on compassionate grounds or on a regular basis.
• The Court further observed that it was the State who had appointed the respondent on the post of Officer on Special Duty, and now it is not open for the State to contend that the respondent could not be appointed to the said post as it was required to be filled by the Public Service Commission.
• Thus, there can be no difference in the pay scale on the same post for a person who was appointed on compassionate grounds and one who was appointed on a regular basis.
• Thus the Court, finding no basis in the writ petition, dismissed the appeal.

Madras HC Directs Extension Of Shelter Scheme To All Members Of LGBTQIA+ Community

• A single judge bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has directed the Union Government to extend the ambit of ‘Garima Greh’ Scheme to include all the members of the LGBTQIA+ community and not just transgenders alone.
• The Court has made this direction considering the fact that the transgender community forms only a small part of the LGBTQIA+ community and thus it would be unfair to give the benefit of the scheme to only that community and not the whole. The Court further said that only after doing the above would the scheme be considered a wholesome and all encompassing, non- discriminative scheme benefiting the marginalized sections of the society.
• The Court also stated that the people belonging to these marginalized communities have no support from their families or the society, in such a situation the government’s schemes are their last ray of hope.
• The Court also directed the Government that it should publish a glossary of words and expressions used for addressing the members of the LGBTQIA+ community, as these words, when used in regular practice, “would pave way for a dignified identity of the members belonging to that community”.
• The Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also informed the court that amendments to the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officer’s Conduct Rules, 1964 will also be made at the earliest. This was done in response to the Courts directions in a plea for protection filed by a lesbian couple facing police harrasment, and also in furtherance of the guidelines issued by the HC in June of this year to ensure the protection of the members of the LGBTQIA+ community in consenting relationships.
• The Court also expressed it’s dismay that the training module titled “Inclusion of Transgender Children in School Education: Concerns and Roadmap” was taken down from the NCERT website. To this, the Deputy Secretary of NCERT has submitted that it was only a draft training material and was not yet approved. The same will be uploaded in the beginning of the next academic year, the Court was assured.
• Further, the National Medical Commission has submitted that it has set up a committee to address the concerns expressed by the court about the terminology used in the Competency- Based Undergraduate Curriculum. The Court said that these small steps will instill faith in the members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Banker-Depositor Relationship That Of Creditor-Debtor: SC

• A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli has held in the case of N. Raghavender vs. State of Andhra Pradesh has held that the money deposited by a customer in the bank is not held by it as a trustee. The court also observed that the same forms part of the fund of the bank and can be withdrawn by the depositor as and when the occasion arises.
• This observation was made in the case of an appeal filed by the bank manager who has been convicted of offences under Sections 409, 420 and 477A of the IPC.
• In the instant case, Accused no. 3, the Treasurer of the Nishita Educational Academy had opened a current bank account in his capacity as the authorized signatory of the academy, with an initial deposit of Rs.5,00,000. The appellant (Accused no. 1) was the brother-in law of accused no. 3 and was the bank’s Branch Manager.
• The appellant, in his capacity as the branch manager, issued 3 loose cheques, and despite the withdrawal of Rs.10,00,000, the debit was not entered by him into the ledger book.
• He was further accused of closing two FDR’s prematurely of a sum of Rs.10,00,000 and 4,00,000. A total of 14,00,000 was credited into the account but only 4,00,000 was shown. The remaining 10,00,000 were allegedly adjusted to the withdrawal done in the past.
• After the irregularities were noted, an inquiry was set up. And later, the accused were ultimately convicted both by the trial court as well as by the HC.
• The Supreme Court however, disagreed with the decision of the lower court and the HC. The bench observed the following-

a) “The crucial word used in 405 IPC is dishonestly and therefore, it presupposes the existence of mens rea. Mere retention of property entrusted to a person, without any misappropriation cannot fall within the ambit of criminal breach of trust. Thus, unless it is proved that the accused was entrusted with the property which he is duty bound to account for, and that person has committed criminal breach of trust, section 409 cannot be attracted.

b) Unless the complainant can show that the accused has a dishonest intention at the time the complainant parted with the money, section 420 cannot be attracted.”

c) On the aspect of loose cheques, the Court has held that “Since no explicit prohibition on issuing of loose cheques has been proved, the mere fact that the appellant issued those loose cheques, is not sufficient to conclude that he acted unlawfully or committed a criminal misconduct”.

• In light of the aforesaid observations, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of all charges.