Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Kerala High Court Rules Against Retrospective Regularisation, Asserts 'Settled Seniority Must Not Be Disturbed

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court maintains Guruvayoor Devaswom’s decision on teacher’s regularisation date, dismisses plea for backdated benefits

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Sathi Devi K., a teacher at Guruvayoor Devaswom English Medium School, seeking retrospective regularisation of her appointment from 2007 and inclusion in the statutory pension scheme. The judgment, delivered by Justice T.R. Ravi, emphasized that the petitioner’s acceptance of her confirmation date and subsequent delay in challenging the order rendered her claims untenable.

Justice T.R. Ravi observed that the petitioner had accepted the order confirming her appointment from April 17, 2013, and had not challenged it within a reasonable period. The court stated, "The petitioner cannot seek modification of the confirmation date under the guise of a declaration after accepting the order for six years."

The court applied the doctrine of sit-back, which precludes individuals from challenging settled matters after a significant delay, noting that revisiting the petitioner’s seniority would disrupt the established seniority list and unsettle the positions of other teachers who had been regularised earlier.

Addressing the petitioner’s argument for parity with her colleagues regularised from 2012, the court highlighted the unique circumstances of each case. It noted, "The petitioner and other teachers confirmed in 2013 had crossed the age limit for regularisation at the time of their initial appointments, which justified their later confirmation on humanitarian grounds."

The judgment meticulously examined the petitioner’s claims under the principles of administrative fairness and the legal standards for retrospective regularisation. The court found that the petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prem Ram v. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam was misplaced due to differing factual matrices.

Justice Ravi pointed out that the petitioner had not contested crucial decisions, such as the rejection of her request for earlier regularisation and inclusion in the statutory pension scheme, which further weakened her case.

"The petitioner's acceptance of the order of confirmation and subsequent benefits under the contributory pension scheme nullifies her current claims for statutory pension benefits," the court remarked, underscoring the legal principle that acquiescence can imply waiver of the right to challenge.

"The petitioner’s claim is highly belated and cannot be entertained by this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

"The doctrine of sit-back will also apply in this case since the challenge, if allowed, would unsettle the settled position of seniority."

The Kerala High Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely legal challenges and the principle of maintaining administrative stability. By upholding the Guruvayoor Devaswom’s decisions, the judgment reinforces the notion that retrospective claims must be promptly and appropriately contested. This ruling is expected to impact future cases involving disputes over regularisation and seniority, particularly in educational institutions.

 

Date of Decision: May 14, 2024

Sathi Devi K. vs. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Others

Similar News