The Supreme Court, in the 24 September judgment of National Gandhi Museum v Sudhir Sharma, observed that whether an employee after dismissal was gainfully employed was within his special knowledge and, therefore, considering the principles laid down in section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden was on the employee to come out with a case that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period.
The museum was appealing a 31 August 2009 Delhi High Court judgment that directed it to reinstate with back wages an employee who was sent into compulsory retirement.
The appellant submitted that the onus was on the respondent to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed from the date of the order of compulsory retirement. The counsel submitted that, as the respondent has not discharged the burden on him, he was not entitled to claim back wages.
The court held that whether such burden was discharged or not was an issue to be decided on the facts of each case.
On 24 December 1996, Sudhir Sharma was appointed as a museum assistant by the National Gandhi Museum. In 2002, an office order was issued by the museum cancelling the option of compensatory leave against extra attendance, and instead providing for extra emoluments for extra attendance. Objecting to the office order, Sharma, on 27 December 2003, allegedly assaulted the museum’s assistant director and committed misconduct. Sharma was served a charge sheet, which was challenged by him by...
The issues of fraud and fraudulent billings continue to dominate national and local headlines. The state lost its federal Medicaid fraud unit funding for not aggressively pursuing falsified billin...