Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana 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