TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Overturns HC: PIL Not Valid in Service Matters; Upholds CEO Appointment and Honorarium for Additional Duties.</h1> <h3>Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Versus Dhobei Sahoo and Ors</h3> The SC allowed the appeals, setting aside the HC's judgment and order. It ruled that the PIL was not maintainable in service matters, except for a writ of ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in service matters.2. Validity of the appointment of the Chairman as CEO of CESU.3. Legality of granting honorarium to the Chairman for additional charge as CEO.4. Direction for recovery of the amount paid to the Chairman.Summary of Judgment:1. Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in service matters:The Supreme Court emphasized that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters except for a writ of quo warranto. The High Court's decision to entertain the PIL and direct recovery of the amount paid was beyond the scope of a PIL. The Court cited various precedents to clarify that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to ensuring that a public office is not held by a usurper without legal authority.2. Validity of the appointment of the Chairman as CEO of CESU:The Supreme Court scrutinized the Scheme framed by the State Commission u/s 22 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Scheme allowed the Commission to give additional charge of CEO to the Chairman. The Court found that the High Court had erroneously concluded that the appointment was illegal. The High Court misinterpreted the internal administration of CESU, failing to recognize that the Commission had the authority to make temporary arrangements. The Supreme Court held that the Commission's decision to allow the Chairman to discharge the functions of CEO was within its permissible authority.3. Legality of granting honorarium to the Chairman for additional charge as CEO:The Supreme Court noted that the Chairman was not holding two posts with two sets of salaries but was given an honorarium for additional responsibilities. The High Court's reasoning that granting honorarium was impermissible was flawed. The honorarium was not equivalent to the salary and was justified given the additional duties performed by the Chairman.4. Direction for recovery of the amount paid to the Chairman:The Supreme Court annulled the High Court's direction for recovery of the sum paid to the Chairman. It stated that even if a writ of quo warranto is issued, recovery of the salary or honorarium for services rendered is not permissible. The Court emphasized that denying pay for services rendered amounts to forced labor, which is impermissible. The judgment highlighted the need for a cautious approach while dealing with a writ of quo warranto to avoid causing undue humiliation and loss of honor to the individual concerned.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction and misinterpreted the provisions of the Scheme and the legal principles governing the issue of a writ of quo warranto.
TaxTMI 
