A foster care unit applied for permission to give a destitute child for adoption under The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The Act permits a “guardian” to give a child for adoption when both the parents are dead, have abandoned the child, are of unsound mind, etc. An additional city civil judge rejected the application on the ground that the unit was not a “guardian” as it had not obtained a court declaration to act as “guardian”. However, the Madras High Court held that the term “guardian” means “person having care of the person or of both his person and property”. As such, the unit was a guardian and therefore had the right to give the child for adoption, it held (St Thomas Mount Babies Home Holy Apostles Convent represented by its secretary).
A government-aided private school refused to reimburse a teacher’s medical expenses incurred after implantation of a pacemaker. The authorities argued that the existing rules regarding medical reimbursement were meant only for government servants and not for employees of private institutions. The teacher moved the Gauhati High Court, contending that he was entitled to reimbursement as the grant-in-aid rules provided that the scale of pay and other “admissible allowance” including “financial benefits” admissible to non government school teachers would be the same as teachers in government schools. Upholding the petitioner’s plea, the court held that the terms “admissible allowance” and “financial benefits” were wide enough to include medical expenses (Monoranjan Baishnab vs State of Tripura).
The employment of a teacher was terminated when it was found that he had furnished a fake certificate of Bundelkhand University. The authorities also ordered the recovery of the amount paid to him as salary for the period of his employment in the school. The teacher filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court challenging the orders. Quashing the order of recovery, the high court held that if an appointment was obtained by fraud the employee may be sacked, but it would be unreasonable to recover the salary for the period of his employment (Thummar Anilkumar Valjibhai vs State of Gujarat and others).
