Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagdish Prasad Saini And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 26 April, 2019
The Apex Court in Jagadish Prasad
Saini (supra) noticing the right of an employee for leave
encashment has held us follows:
Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
"20. Evidently, these rules were framed to enable the
absorption of employees and teachers of non-government
aided institutions. What is relevant for the purposes of
this case is that by Rule 5(viii), carry forward of existing
privilege leave is denied; likewise, the period of service in
aided institutions is not to be reckoned for the purpose of
gratuity under Rule 5(ix). Every employee had to furnish
an undertaking in the prescribed form to accept the terms
and conditions. Ordinarily no public employer can be
faulted in imposing pre-conditions before it recruits an
employee. However, such conditions cannot be arbitrary,
or so onerous as to be unconscionable. In the opinion of
this court, the condition in clause (viii) of Rule 5 i.e.,
carry forward of balance privilege leave, is barred and
requiring employees to seek encashment from their
previous employer, i.e., aided institutions, is an arbitrary
and unconscionable condition, which cannot be enforced.
Speaking that such conditions are enforceable, this court,
recently, in Pani Ram v. Union of India9 after quoting the
observations in Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath Ganguly10 held as
follows:
Pani Ram vs Union Of India on 17 December, 2021
"20. Evidently, these rules were framed to enable the
absorption of employees and teachers of non-government
aided institutions. What is relevant for the purposes of
this case is that by Rule 5(viii), carry forward of existing
privilege leave is denied; likewise, the period of service in
aided institutions is not to be reckoned for the purpose of
gratuity under Rule 5(ix). Every employee had to furnish
an undertaking in the prescribed form to accept the terms
and conditions. Ordinarily no public employer can be
faulted in imposing pre-conditions before it recruits an
employee. However, such conditions cannot be arbitrary,
or so onerous as to be unconscionable. In the opinion of
this court, the condition in clause (viii) of Rule 5 i.e.,
carry forward of balance privilege leave, is barred and
requiring employees to seek encashment from their
previous employer, i.e., aided institutions, is an arbitrary
and unconscionable condition, which cannot be enforced.
Speaking that such conditions are enforceable, this court,
recently, in Pani Ram v. Union of India9 after quoting the
observations in Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath Ganguly10 held as
follows:
1