Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Grants Pay Protection To Lecturer Claim Against Academic Institution

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has resolved a pay protection dispute between a lecturer and an academic institution. The appellant, Asma Shaw, had been appointed as a Lecturer in English at The Islamia College of Science & Commerce, Srinagar Kashmir. The dispute arose over whether her appointment entitled her to pay protection. The case had been previously heard by a Single Judge of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, who ruled in favor of the appellant. However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned the decision, leading to the appeal being filed in the Supreme Court.

In the judgement authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, the Supreme Court carefully examined the applicability of Article 77-D of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations and the nature of the appellant's appointment. The court emphasized the distinction between a tenure post and an appointment on a regular post with a tenure basis. The court also scrutinized the language used in the advertisement and terms of the appellant's appointment, finding indications that her post was substantive rather than ad-hoc.

Justice Oka, writing for the bench, stated, "The entire approach of the Division Bench was erroneous when it came to the conclusion that the appellant was not appointed on a substantive basis and, therefore, she does not satisfy the criteria laid down by Article 77-D." The judgement highlighted the exception carved out by the third proviso to Article 77-D and emphasized that the appellant's case did not fall within the scope of this exception.

Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's decision and restored the Single Judge's judgment, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant pay protection to the appellant within one month. Additionally, the court ordered the payment of arrears to the appellant within three months.

This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving pay protection disputes and provides clarity on the interpretation of regulations related to such matters. The decision reaffirms the importance of careful consideration of the terms of appointment and relevant provisions when determining pay protection entitlements for government servants.

Date of Decision: August 08, 2023.

Asma Shaw vs The Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir & Ors.                                                  

Latest Legal News