Category: Service

Contitution of India — Articles 14 & 16 — Equality in employment — Denial of promotion on discriminatory grounds — Appellant denied promotion despite long service, experience, and possessing a qualification that was accepted for similarly situated employees — High Court Division Bench erroneously set aside Single Judge’s order granting relief, creating contradiction in reasoning by first stating discretion lies with Board of Directors and then upholding Registrar’s refusal — Supreme Court allowed appeal, finding non-acceptance of promotion unsustainable and a violation of equality principles.

2026 INSC 353 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMAL PRASAD DUBEY Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.…

Service Matters

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008; Seventh Central Pay Commission Recommendations — Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 — Recommendation 7.4.13 (iv) (b) — Eligibility criteria — Completion of four years in Level 8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis — Interpretation of — Held, denial of NFU on the ground that Junior Engineers did not enter service at Grade Pay of Rs — 4,800/- amounts to adding an additional condition not contemplated by the recommendation.

2026 INSC 311 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SUNIL KUMAR RAI AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Service Law — Dismissal from Service — Disciplinary Proceedings — Violation of Natural Justice — Requirement of Oral Enquiry — Employer’s Burden of Proof — The Apex Court held that unless the charged employee clearly admits guilt, a disciplinary enquiry must be held — The employer must first present evidence and witnesses, allowing the employee to cross-examine — Only then should the employee be given an opportunity to present their defense — The Court emphasized that relying solely on documents without examining witnesses or making them available for cross-examination when charges are denied, vitiates the enquiry.

2026 INSC 305 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI PRAKASH SAINI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law — Disciplinary proceedings — Punishment — Judicial review — The court’s power to review punishment is limited and generally does not allow substitution of its own judgment for that of the disciplinary authority unless the punishment is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or shocks the conscience of the court

2026 INSC 313 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. SH. RAJ KUMAR ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) — Eligibility for Permanent Commission (PC) and pensionary benefits — Applicability of Air Force Human Resource Policy — Refusal of benefits due to not meeting minimum average Annual Confidential Report (ACR) grading of 6.5 — Court’s refusal to grant benefits where minimum criteria not met and no demonstrated mitigating circumstances exist compared to other successful applicants.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SQN. LDR. NITU THAPLIYAL AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,…

Service Matters

Air Force Act, 1950 — Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) — Permanent Commission (PC) — Denial of PC — Assessment of performance and eligibility — HRP 01/2019 — Minimum Performance Criteria — ACR gradings — Mandatory In-Service Courses (MISCs) — Categorisation — Arbitrariness — Hurried implementation — Inadequate opportunity to meet criteria — Pregnancy — Deemed qualifying service for pension — One-time measure.

2026 INSC 280 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH WG. CDR. SUCHETA EDN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

Service Matters

Army Act, 1950 — Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) — Permanent Commission (PC) — Annual Vacancy Cap — The Supreme Court examined the annual cap of 250 vacancies for PC, finding it not to be an immutable rule and that it had been breached historically for exigencies of service and policy changes, thus it should not act as an absolute bar to corrective relief, especially when the method of assessment was found to be unfair.

2026 INSC 281 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LT. COL. POOJA PAL AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan and…

Service Matters

Service Law — Indian Navy — Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) — Grant of Permanent Commission (PC) — Assessment of suitability for PC — Whether casual grading of ACRs and “Not Recommended for PC” endorsements prejudiced officers’ chances of PC — Held yes, as officers were considered ineligible for PC at the time of their ACRs, leading to a distorted assessment of their inter se merit for PC — This circularity transformed past ineligibility into deemed unsuitability for career progression, creating an uneven playing field.

2026 INSC 282 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,…

Service Matters

Army Pension Regulations, 1961 — Condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for second pension for Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel — The Union of India’s contention that condonation for shortfall in qualifying service for a second pension is not applicable to DSC personnel is rejected— The court finds that the Pension Regulations for the Army, specifically Paragraphs 125 (1961) and 44 (2008), which allow for condonation of service deficiency, are applicable to DSC personnel by incorporation by reference, unless there is an explicit inconsistency with DSC-specific provisions— The court finds no such inconsistency— Letters issued by the Ministry of Defence attempting to exclude DSC personnel from this condonation are ineffective as they cannot override statutory regulations.

2026 INSC 286 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. BALAKRISHNAN MULLIKOTE (EX HAV 256812 M) ( Before : Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ. )…

You missed