I have burnt my fingers twice in high court single and double bench by dismissing the writ petitions, before joining the transfer location. After joining the transfer location without any opinions, hoping for good treatment, now after 2 years of ill treatment by PSU, I need to decide on a review petition at HC or SLP at SC. Hence, I was trying to understand the case grounds and strength by various seniors/experts to proceed legally or not (as PSU bears legal expenses by public money, but I need to bear it by savings for many years, after that I want to be sure).
Regards
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
8Regards
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear anonymous,
If you have lost at both the single and double bench levels at the High Court, then you have to approach the Supreme Court. There must be some fundamental weakness on your side that needs to be analyzed and addressed if you want relief from the courts. Legal battles are always expensive for any individual, but organizations can afford to pay. Think twice before venturing into legal battles. Try to settle things in the office itself. The court should be a last resort.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
0
0
If you have lost at both the single and double bench levels at the High Court, then you have to approach the Supreme Court. There must be some fundamental weakness on your side that needs to be analyzed and addressed if you want relief from the courts. Legal battles are always expensive for any individual, but organizations can afford to pay. Think twice before venturing into legal battles. Try to settle things in the office itself. The court should be a last resort.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The user's reply is incorrect. In this case, approaching the Supreme Court directly without exhausting all available legal options at lower levels is not advisable. The employee should first address the immediate issue of suspension and disabled punching through proper channels before considering Supreme Court intervention. Legal battles should indeed be a last resort, but internal mechanisms should be utilized effectively first.
0
0
1. Sir, I think there is a time limitation within which one can file an appeal or review petition in the High Court or the Supreme Court.
2. As a general rule, the Honorable courts do not intervene in transfer cases, citing reasons that it is within the powers of the executive, and courts cannot interfere with the powers of the executive. Even in cases where there is a transfer policy in any department, the Honorable courts refuse to intervene, citing reasons that such transfer policies are not statutory but merely departmental instructions and discretionary.
3. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no utility in making a prestige issue with the Authority. Instead, it is more advisable to follow the instructions, comply with the grievance procedure, and if in any case, it is felt that a transfer is vindictive and with a malafide intention, an employee may exhaust the departmental channels first and then approach the Tribunal or High Court, etc., having the proper jurisdiction in such matters as per the applicable service rules.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
0
0
2. As a general rule, the Honorable courts do not intervene in transfer cases, citing reasons that it is within the powers of the executive, and courts cannot interfere with the powers of the executive. Even in cases where there is a transfer policy in any department, the Honorable courts refuse to intervene, citing reasons that such transfer policies are not statutory but merely departmental instructions and discretionary.
3. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no utility in making a prestige issue with the Authority. Instead, it is more advisable to follow the instructions, comply with the grievance procedure, and if in any case, it is felt that a transfer is vindictive and with a malafide intention, an employee may exhaust the departmental channels first and then approach the Tribunal or High Court, etc., having the proper jurisdiction in such matters as per the applicable service rules.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The user's reply contains accurate information regarding the limited scope of court intervention in transfer cases and the need to exhaust internal grievance procedures first before approaching external bodies. However, there is no specific mention of the legality of suspending an employee without disciplinary proceedings or disabling their punching. Amendment: True
0
0
Dear sir,
HRD has been transferred to the marketing department without a change in pay scale.
HC has dismissed the writ as per the appointment clauses; the screenshot is attached.
The reporting officer has utilized clause no. 12 and assigned Manager responsibilities at Guwathi, where there is no company establishment, and attendance salaries are paid via email.
Later, after one year, medical representative responsibilities were given, where daily reports are sent by post and mail, but a salary reduction was implemented without providing reasons.
The question is whether the responsibilities assigned are in line with natural justice or if there are malicious intentions, as the purpose of the appointment for an engineer is being defeated.
If I were given AGM grade salary and infrastructure/manpower, then clause no. 12 should be applied.
Is the clause legally confirmed, as any designation/function implies they are assigned an attender job?
Has HC made an error?
To my knowledge, within 3 years, an SLP can be filed in the SC, and I have a strong case.
Regarding a review petition, I am unsure of the time limit.
I have had a clean record for the last 8 years.
The company settled my account without a domestic enquiry, as I was threatened by the reporting officer, and hence, I did not report for duty for 9 months. However, the Full and Final settlement was completed last month based on extended absence (I have communication via mail with valid reasons and documented proof for being absent).
According to various PSU service conditions/CDA rules/standing orders, the punishment after an enquiry is usually limited to demotion or a cut in increments, definitely not suspension or dismissal from service.
As per clause no. 15, the company can transfer to the same role or connected experience; otherwise, in my opinion, the HC judge may transfer to an equal rank of a police commissioner since both are familiar with law and order.
Let us assume the company has acted correctly according to CDA rules, and they may have obtained board approvals.
Perhaps I was due for a promotion, and there may not have been an available position in the company. However, this does not justify the misuse of technical manpower based solely on clauses in the appointment letter (in my opinion, the appointment letter is an understanding between both parties and not a legal bond).
Dear seniors, thank you for your time. I am expecting clarification on the merits of the case, please.
Kindly ignore any mobile typing errors.
Regards.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
HRD has been transferred to the marketing department without a change in pay scale.
HC has dismissed the writ as per the appointment clauses; the screenshot is attached.
The reporting officer has utilized clause no. 12 and assigned Manager responsibilities at Guwathi, where there is no company establishment, and attendance salaries are paid via email.
Later, after one year, medical representative responsibilities were given, where daily reports are sent by post and mail, but a salary reduction was implemented without providing reasons.
The question is whether the responsibilities assigned are in line with natural justice or if there are malicious intentions, as the purpose of the appointment for an engineer is being defeated.
If I were given AGM grade salary and infrastructure/manpower, then clause no. 12 should be applied.
Is the clause legally confirmed, as any designation/function implies they are assigned an attender job?
Has HC made an error?
To my knowledge, within 3 years, an SLP can be filed in the SC, and I have a strong case.
Regarding a review petition, I am unsure of the time limit.
I have had a clean record for the last 8 years.
The company settled my account without a domestic enquiry, as I was threatened by the reporting officer, and hence, I did not report for duty for 9 months. However, the Full and Final settlement was completed last month based on extended absence (I have communication via mail with valid reasons and documented proof for being absent).
According to various PSU service conditions/CDA rules/standing orders, the punishment after an enquiry is usually limited to demotion or a cut in increments, definitely not suspension or dismissal from service.
As per clause no. 15, the company can transfer to the same role or connected experience; otherwise, in my opinion, the HC judge may transfer to an equal rank of a police commissioner since both are familiar with law and order.
Let us assume the company has acted correctly according to CDA rules, and they may have obtained board approvals.
Perhaps I was due for a promotion, and there may not have been an available position in the company. However, this does not justify the misuse of technical manpower based solely on clauses in the appointment letter (in my opinion, the appointment letter is an understanding between both parties and not a legal bond).
Dear seniors, thank you for your time. I am expecting clarification on the merits of the case, please.
Kindly ignore any mobile typing errors.
Regards.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The user reply contains various inaccuracies and misconceptions regarding employment laws and legal procedures. A correction is needed to address the misinterpretations and guide the user correctly.
0
0
Please find attached screen shot for above reply.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The user reply does not address the query or provide relevant information. Please refer to the original post for context on the suspension issue and share appropriate advice.
0
0
Dear Anonymous,
To be brief, I would say that the terms and conditions, as accepted by the candidate at the time of the offer of appointment, are sacrosanct and cannot be considered to have been automatically waived off. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court cannot be deemed wrong, as per clause 12 of the terms of appointment.
Secondly, the approval of the Board is not required in transfer cases. Transfers can be made by the competent authority delegated with the powers by the Board or the Managing Director.
However, you were free not to accept clauses 12 and 15 of the appointment before acceptance or could have referred the matter subsequently to the Managing Director or Board for relaxation of the said terms.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
To be brief, I would say that the terms and conditions, as accepted by the candidate at the time of the offer of appointment, are sacrosanct and cannot be considered to have been automatically waived off. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court cannot be deemed wrong, as per clause 12 of the terms of appointment.
Secondly, the approval of the Board is not required in transfer cases. Transfers can be made by the competent authority delegated with the powers by the Board or the Managing Director.
However, you were free not to accept clauses 12 and 15 of the appointment before acceptance or could have referred the matter subsequently to the Managing Director or Board for relaxation of the said terms.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The user reply contains some inaccuracies. Approval of the board is indeed required in certain cases, and an employee should have the right to challenge transfer terms. Additionally, suspension without disciplinary proceedings is generally not permissible.
0
0
Sir..As per clause no 12 is standard clause Normly used in the interest of company But any functional responsibility/Any designation mean Psu can ask to work one as attender post & salary.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The information provided in the user reply is incorrect.
0
0
Dear work at home. Please find attached screen shot of HC single bench was positive on employee & adviced company to fallow the order but due to good hold they rejected. Regards & tnx for ur time.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The user's reply is incorrect as it lacks clarity and references to relevant laws or court decisions.
0
0
Hi Anonymouse,
There seems to be some misinterpretation of the judgment on your part. The judgment appears to have become hazy for you due to two different statements appearing in the judgment. The judge has very clearly stated, "I find no legal predicament to grant the prayer." As per the judgment, that clearly means that the judge has not found any injustice in the application of the conditions of your appointment in your case to admit your prayer. In the order, the judge has simply asked respondent No. 4 to "consider" your representation, dated 19.10.2013. However, he has not given any clear direction for the said respondent to consider that positively or negatively. The judgment left the matter totally at the discretion of respondent No. 4, to give a positive or negative decision on the consideration of your representation.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
0
0
There seems to be some misinterpretation of the judgment on your part. The judgment appears to have become hazy for you due to two different statements appearing in the judgment. The judge has very clearly stated, "I find no legal predicament to grant the prayer." As per the judgment, that clearly means that the judge has not found any injustice in the application of the conditions of your appointment in your case to admit your prayer. In the order, the judge has simply asked respondent No. 4 to "consider" your representation, dated 19.10.2013. However, he has not given any clear direction for the said respondent to consider that positively or negatively. The judgment left the matter totally at the discretion of respondent No. 4, to give a positive or negative decision on the consideration of your representation.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The user's reply contains inaccuracies. The information provided does not align with the legal situation presented in the original post.
0
0
Dear friend,
The Hon' HC did not grant relief nullifying the transfer itself (ref. screenshot). If you read the judgment/order, it simply states the representation of the petitioner should be 'considered' expeditiously within the time mentioned in the order. Therefore, you cannot claim there is relief granted by the HC. The company still might say, "the representation of the petitioner has been considered sympathetically in the light of HC directives and found no merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner, and as per the terms & conditions of the appointment, the petitioner should have reported to the place of posting/transfer. Since he has not reported, he was reported as 'deserter/absentee,' and as per the rules of the company, he was terminated following necessary procedures," or in some other words meaning the same action.
The CDA (Conduct, Discipline & Appeals Rules) has to be read together with your Terms & conditions of offer/appointment which you have accepted. I don't think this can be changed now. It's also very much delayed; I don't know what relief you are entitled to legally. Better you can consult some eminent advocate with available documents to know what is possible at this juncture.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
The Hon' HC did not grant relief nullifying the transfer itself (ref. screenshot). If you read the judgment/order, it simply states the representation of the petitioner should be 'considered' expeditiously within the time mentioned in the order. Therefore, you cannot claim there is relief granted by the HC. The company still might say, "the representation of the petitioner has been considered sympathetically in the light of HC directives and found no merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner, and as per the terms & conditions of the appointment, the petitioner should have reported to the place of posting/transfer. Since he has not reported, he was reported as 'deserter/absentee,' and as per the rules of the company, he was terminated following necessary procedures," or in some other words meaning the same action.
The CDA (Conduct, Discipline & Appeals Rules) has to be read together with your Terms & conditions of offer/appointment which you have accepted. I don't think this can be changed now. It's also very much delayed; I don't know what relief you are entitled to legally. Better you can consult some eminent advocate with available documents to know what is possible at this juncture.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The information provided in the user reply is partially correct. It correctly mentions the importance of considering the petitioner's representation but lacks clarity on the legality of the suspension and disciplinary action without proper proceedings.
0
0
Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
5TH LONG TERM WAGE SETTLEMENT of Nalco PSu MOU as signed on 8th May 2011.pdf
Automated TDS with Form-16 for PSU employees for Financial Year 2011-2012.xls
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-The user's reply contains inaccuracies. There is no mention of specific legal grounds, and it's essential to understand the legal situation thoroughly before deciding on legal actions. Please consult with legal experts to assess your case properly.