LawforAll

▼
Thursday, April 21, 2022

The principle of estoppel cannot be invoked in this case against the appellant to debar him from claiming the benefit properly computed as per his age reflected in the official documents. Occasion did not arise for the appellant to advert to the age correcting process so far as entry in the Form “B” is concerned as the employer themselves had treated his date of birth to be 21st September 1949 in the service book.In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench as also the Single Judge of the High Court did not appreciate the materials available in their proper perspective. We do not think that the view taken by the Division Bench was a possible view. Sustaining such view would result in depriving the appellant of his legitimate benefits under the applicable Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The materials relied upon by the appellant were ignored altogether. We thus set aside the judgment of the Division Bench. As a consequence, the judgment of the Single Judge also would stand set aside. The rejection order dated 13th October 2008 of the competent authority shall stand quashed. The respondent no.1 proceeded in the case of the appellant in an erroneous manner in treating the appellant’s date of birth to be 21st September 1945. We accordingly direct the respondents to extend the benefits of VRS to the appellant treating his date of birth as 21st September 1949.

›
REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO.2858 OF 2022   (Arising out of Special Leave to App...

Dismissal of petition for leave to appeal -not amounts to merger = A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non­speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non­speaking order, i.e., it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of 6 (2000) 6 SCC 359 29 merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared.If the order of dismissal be supported by reasons then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted because the jurisdiction exercised was not an appellate jurisdiction but merely a discretionary jurisdiction refusing to grant leave to appeal.

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3036­3064  OF 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Pet...

Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. -It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2953 OF 2022 Ramveer Upadhyay ...