Service Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

January 15, 2026 5:48 pm

Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 38 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. BHAWANA MISHRA ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Service

Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1477 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATNANK MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay…

Service

Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1479 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. PRANAB KUMAR NATH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1462 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RADHIKA T. Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…

Service

Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 — Section 34(4) — Transfer of proceedings and effect of orders — Section 34(4) provides that any order made by the High Court at Patna before the appointed day in certain proceedings, shall for all purposes have effect not only as an order of the High Court at Patna but also as an order made by the High Court of Jharkhand — This deeming provision ensures continuity of judicial authority and mandates that judgments (like Nagendra Sahani) rendered by the Patna High Court before the reorganization, concerning employees subsequently allocated to Jharkhand (Successor State), must be treated as binding precedent by the High Court of Jharkhand. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 21, 31)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1445 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service

Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Nature of right — Appointment on compassionate bases is a concession, not a matter of right, and serves as an exception to the general rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India — Core objective is to enable the dependent family to tide over sudden financial crisis following the death of the employee, providing relief against destitution — It is not intended to provide a post much less a post held by the deceased or a higher post based on educational qualification. (Paras 3, 7, 7.1, 7.3, 11)

Dec 15, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1423 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT AND OTHERS Vs. M. JAYABAL AND ANOTHER ETC. ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.…

Service

General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960 — Rules 5(5), 5(6), 33 and Note 2 to Rule 476(V) of Official Manual (Part V) — Interpretation — While Rules 5(5) and 5(6) read together do not automatically cancel a nomination where the subscriber fails to send a notice of cancellation and a fresh nomination — The express condition in the original nomination form stating it invalidates upon the subscriber acquiring a family renders the nomination void the moment the condition (marriage) occurs, triggering distribution under Rule 33(i)(b) to all family members in equal shares. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

Dec 14, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1391 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. BOLLA MALATHI Vs. B. SUGUNA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

General Insurance Service

Insurance Scheme — PMGKY Package — Requisition of Services of Private Doctors — The invocation of special laws (Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897) and implementing regulations (Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations, 2020), coupled with executive actions such as the NMMC notice directing private dispensaries to remain open under threat of penal action (IPC S. 188), constitutes a “requisition” of services for doctors and health professionals under the scheme requirements — A narrow interpretation of “requisition” requiring specific individual appointment letters is rejected due to the compelling, emergent circumstances of the pandemic. (Paras 23-26, 30(a))

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1420 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP ARORA AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R.…

Service

Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1404 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1385 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAXMIKANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Category: Service

You missed