Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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