Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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