The Supreme Court bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant, heard the appeal filed in the case of Nestle India (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India against the order of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 9th and 10th December, 2015. They have directed that samples of ‘Maggi Noodles’ collected by Local Commissioner of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission shall be sent to Mysore Laboratory.
It was argued by the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Harish Salve appearing for Nestle India that the laboratory at Chennai is not fully equipped to carry out all the tests required for the product. However, the aforesaid submission was resisted by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, counsel for Union of India, and, he urged that the product be sent to Chennai after taking consent of the Appellants.
In the course of hearing, counsels for both the parties agreed that the primary concern is health and it has to meet the parameters of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, therefore, Mysore laboratory is absolutely well equipped for testing the sample of Maggi Noodles. It was also directed by the court that the test reports shall be produced before it and, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission shall not proceed with the case pending before it till the time the Noodles are tested.
Madras High Court: Second wife of a deceased government employee is qualified to claim family pension without requiring to present her marriage certificate
Recently, the Madras High Court in the case of G. Pushpam v. Superintending Engineer, considered the issue as to whether the second wife of the deceased government employee is entitled to claim family pension without production of her marriage certificate. It was held that the petitioner (second wife) is entitled to claim the same without requiring to present marriage certificate before the concerned authorities if she proves herself to be the heir of the deceased.
The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order by the respondent refusing her to claim the pension. It was urged by the counsel of the Petitioner that although the she is the second wife of deceased,she had married him lawfully after the death of the deceased’s first wife. Therefore, the Respondent Superintendent Engineer is not justified in refusing to grant family pension to her.
After careful examination of the facts of the case, the court observed that the Petitioner has proved her eligibility as the heir of the deceased by producing documents like death certificate of her husband and birth certificate of her daughter. Therefore, the Respondent is not justified in refusing the family pension to the petitioner and the minor daughter as the pension rules of TANGEDCO make the production of the marriage certificate as a condition precedent to the grant of family pension. The Court quashed the order of the respondent and directed him to pay the family pensions with all arrears as per the rules.