A head constable was dismissed from service after charges were proven against him in a departmental enquiry. He filed a mercy petition which was allowed by the state government. He was reinstated without back wages. The government imposed a penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The constable filed a writ petition asserting that he was entitled to back wages. Dismissing the petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that he must be satisfied with the relief granted to him in the mercy petition (Harishankar Bhargav vs State of MP and others).
Unit Trust of India (UTI) policy-holders filed complaints at the consumers’ forum for not receiving the maturity amount. Investigations found that a major fraud had been committed. The cheques issued by UTI and sent by registered post had been intercepted, deposited into accounts opened in the names of the payees and the money withdrawn. The district forum held UTI negligent and ordered it to pay up. UTI appealed before the Supreme Court, which held that mere posting of the cheque would not amount to payment and the unit-holders were entitled to receive payment (UTI vs Ravinder Kumar Shukla and others).
The Rajasthan High Court held that Articles 19, 21 and 47 of the Constitution cast a duty upon the Indian Railways to provide medical facilities to its passengers. The court directed the Railways to keep a coup? equipped with life-saving drugs, oxygen cylinders, etc, and to employ medical experts. The directions were given in response to a public interest litigation filed after a newspaper reported that a railway officer died of cardiac arrest on a train from Jaipur to Kota (Ram Dutt Sharma vs Union of India and others).
SOLON
