Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Holds Repatriation of Employee During Probation Valid; Pensionary Benefits to be Calculated Based on Discharged Post

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that the repatriation of an employee during the probation period is valid. The apex court emphasized that once an employee resumes duty at their parent department after repatriation, they cease to be an employee of the organization from which they were repatriated. The judgment was delivered in the case of National Technical Research Organization & Others vs. Dipti Deodhare (Civil Appeal No. 413 of 2023).

The Supreme Court stated, "Once the respondent was repatriated and resumed duty at DRDO, she ceased to be an employee of NTRO. Repatriation during the probation period was deemed valid." This ruling clarifies the legality of repatriation during an employee's probation period and settles the question of their employment status.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of pensionary benefits and terminal benefits. The respondent in the case, who held the position of Scientist 'H' in DRDO, claimed consequential benefits and past service benefits based on that post. However, since the respondent had not completed her probation period as Scientist 'H' in NTRO, the Court held that terminal benefits should be calculated based on the post from which the respondent was discharged, namely Scientist 'G' in DRDO.

The Supreme Court stated, "Pensionary benefits should be calculated based on the post from which the respondent was discharged, which in this case was Scientist 'G' in DRDO." This decision clarifies the calculation of terminal benefits for employees who are repatriated during their probation period.

In a separate aspect of the case, the Court permitted the respondent to press her voluntary retirement application. The application would be evaluated by DRDO, considering her position as Scientist 'G'. If the respondent chooses to pursue voluntary retirement, she would be entitled to the benefits available for retirement as Scientist 'G' in DRDO.

The Court also highlighted the discretion of employees regarding the continuation of their lien on a substantively held post. The employer cannot compel an employee to exercise their lien. In this case, the respondent had the option to maintain her lien on the post of Scientist 'G' in DRDO, and her repatriation did not affect her lien rights.

The Supreme Court's judgment quashed and set aside the previous judgment of the High Court, reinstating the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The High Court had directed the treating of the repatriation order as an order of discharge simpliciter and granting consequential benefits as Scientist 'H'. The Supreme Court found these directions to be inconsistent and unsustainable.

Date of Judgment: February 17, 2023

National Technical Research Organization & Others vs Dipti Deodhare

Latest Legal News