Service Archives - Page 2 of 81 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

January 22, 2025 12:34 pm

Service Law — Employment — Caste Certificate — The court cannot question the validity of caste certificates issued by the competent authority after following the due process of law, even if the caste is later de-scheduled or de-notified – The court cannot alter or amend the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, as it has no power to do so within the meaning, content, and scope of these articles.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 634 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. NIRMALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CANARA BANK AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta,…

Service

Service Law — Pension — Pension entitlement — The court clarified that only those UPSRTC employees who were absorbed from the State Government and held permanent posts prior to their absorption in the UPSRTC are entitled to pension — This means that employees who were not holding any pensionable post prior to their deputation or absorption in the corporation are not entitled to pension.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UP ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant…

Service

Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 — Rule 21 — Stepping up of a pay of Government Employee on the basis of the pay of his junior — Whether the principle of stepping up the pay of an employee based on the pay of a junior applies when the appellants are on a lesser pay scale than Assistant Professors appointed before them as ad hoc lecturers and subsequently regularized — Whether Rule 21 of the 2002 Pay Rules applies to the appellants’ situation, where juniors are paid more due to their ad hoc services being counted for Senior Scale/Selection Grade — The appellants argued that they are entitled to pay parity with their juniors under Rule 21, as they belong to the same cadre and the anomaly in pay is due to the application of the rule — The respondents contended that Rule 21 does not apply as the anomaly is not a direct result of the rule but due to the juniors’ ad hoc services being counted — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Rule 21 is inapplicable as the anomaly is not a direct result of the rule — The court reasoned that granting the appellants’ request would result in inequity, as they would benefit from years of service they did not render — The appeals were dismissed, and Rule 21 was deemed inapplicable in this case.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 608 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Service

Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) eligibility — The Court clarified that the benefits of CAS are not automatically granted to all Assistant Professors — Instead, eligibility is subject to fulfilling certain conditions, including completion of a specific number of years of service after “regular appointment” — The Court held that redesignation from one post to another does not automatically qualify as “regular appointment”.

Aug 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 581 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR — Appellant Vs. DR. ZABAR SINGH SOLANKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Service

Service Law — Removal from Service — Respondent appointed as Inspector in 1960 and later as Assistant Registrar, faced multiple charges of misconduct, including unauthorized appointments and financial irregularities —The main issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent removal of from service were justified —The State of Rajasthan argued that respondent’s actions demonstrated insubordination and financial misconduct, justifying his removal — Respondent contended that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed and that there was no substantial evidence to support the charges against him —Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s decision, reinstating the removal order against respondent —The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges —The Court emphasized that it is not the role of the High Court to reappraise evidence in disciplinary matters unless there is a clear violation of natural justice —The Supreme Court restored the removal order, finding no procedural impropriety or lack of evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 592 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHUPENDRA SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Service

Service Law — Pay fixation error — The appellant, a retired government employee, was promoted and received a revised pay scale — Years after retirement, the government sought to recover excess payments due to a pay fixation error — Whether the government can retrospectively reduce the appellant’s pay scale and recover excess payments after retirement — The appellant argued that the government resolution protecting promotions before a certain date was misinterpreted, and the recovery was arbitrary and violated natural justice —The State of Bihar contended that the resolution applied uniformly and the recovery was justified due to the error in pay fixation —The Supreme Court quashed the government’s order to reduce the pay scale and recover excess payments, ruling it illegal and arbitrary —The court emphasized that the appellant’s promotion was valid and protected by the resolution, and the recovery was unjustified after such a long period —The court cited precedents where recovery of excess payments was deemed inequitable if not promptly addressed and without employee fault —The appellant’s pay scale and pension were restored, and any recovered amounts were to be reimbursed with interest.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 591 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan,…

Service

Service Law — Termination — The Supreme Court upheld the termination of a CRPF constable’s services for concealing information about pending criminal cases against him in his verification roll — The court held that the CRPF constable had deliberately withheld material information from the CRPF while filling up the verification roll, despite being aware of the FIR registered against him and the ensuing criminal cases — The court noted that the standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a law enforcement agency must always be higher and more rigorous — The court also held that the CRPF had exercised its discretion as an employer in a reasonable manner and the decision to terminate the services of the constable was justified.

Jul 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 550 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHISHU PAL @ SHIV PAL — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and…

Service

Service Law — Promotion — Completion of the required service period for promotion does not automatically entitle an employee to be promoted from the date the position became vacant — The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but it does not translate into a vested right for promotion unless the rules explicitly provide for it. Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is expressly provided by the relevant service rules – that promotion to a higher position should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which a vacancy may have arisen — The court reiterated that no retrospective promotion can be granted unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules.

Jul 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 549 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DHARAMDEO DAS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Service

Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 531 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HIMAL KUMARI AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Service

Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Rule 5(1) – Two judicial officers challenged the promotion process for Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District Judge, arguing that the High Court of Gujarat incorrectly applied the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ instead of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ as stipulated by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – The main issue was whether the promotion process adhered to the principle and if the final Select List was in contravention of this principle – The petitioners contended that the High Court wrongly assessed all eligible candidates for a minimum merit level and then promoted them based on seniority, which equates to ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ – The High Court argued that ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ should not be confused with pure merit and that seniority should also be considered – The Court analyzed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32, the legislative history of the 2005 Rules, and the decision in All India Judges’ Association (3), emphasizing the need for merit-based criteria for promotion in the Higher Judicial Service – The final decision on the promotion process’s adherence to ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ was to be determined.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 436 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y.…

You missed

C P C

High Court cannot pass an interim order in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC without first formulating a substantial question of law

Jan 19, 2025 sclaw

Specific Relief Act

When a higher court’s decree is issued, the lower court’s decree merges into it, and any time stipulations in the lower court’s decree do not automatically revive upon the higher court’s judgment

Jan 19, 2025 sclaw

Service

Promotions based on merit-cum-seniority, suitability should be judged individually, not comparatively, and officers meeting the minimum criteria cannot be denied promotion based on a merit list

Jan 17, 2025 sclaw

Arbitration

A micro or small enterprise does not need to be registered under Section 8 of the MSMED Act to make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw

Category: Service

You missed