Category: Service

Service Matters

(a) whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw her prospective resignation before the effective date; (b) whether the acceptance of her resignation by the trust was final, binding and irrevocable; and (c) what relief could be granted to the appellant – The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the College Tribunal and the High Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. MRS. SUMAN V. JAIN — Appellant Vs. MARWADI SAMMELAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V.…

Service Matters

Institute had deviated from the original selection procedure and introduced a new criterion of “relevant subject” for PG Degree, which was not prescribed in the notification – The Court also held that the appellant was entitled to 6 marks for his additional qualification, which would have made him the highest in the list

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed – It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court – Appellant is reinstated in service with all consequential benefits – Order of termination set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHATRAPAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…

Service Matters

No finding has been recorded by the authorities that the army personnel had as of fact, produced such certificates or that their explanation claiming that no such certificates were furnished by them is completely false – In effect, the authorities have not dealt with the explanations/claims of army personnel – Army personnel shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits – Appeals allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NO.2809759H EX-RECRUIT BABANNA MACHCHED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Service Matters

Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 – Rule 25 – Pension – It is well settled that pension scheme(s) floated by the State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation; and ought to be interpreted widely subject to such interpretation not running contrary to the express provisions of the Pension Rules – Furthermore, it would be relevant to underscore that the State Government is a model employer; and ought to uphold principles of fairness and clarity.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 – Rules 11, 14 and 30 – Judicial Service – Change of Selection criteria – Selection process of District Judge Cadre – Part of the Full Court Resolution of the Jharkhand High Court dated 23.03.2023 by which it was decided that only those candidates who have secured at least 50% marks in aggregate shall be qualified for appointment to the post of District Judge is quashed – Writ petitions allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay…

Service Matters

CSIR’s argument that respondent no. 1 was not graded as ‘Good’ whereas respondent nos. 2 & 3 were graded as ‘Very Good’ was irrelevant because the promotion of respondent nos. 2 & 3 had been interfered with by the High Court holding them to be ineligible for the post – In view of the above facts, the Court held that the action of the appellant-CSIR in denying promotion to respondent no. 1 upon the post of Under Secretary was rightly reversed by the High Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH(CSIR) — Appellant Vs. J.K. PRASHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Service Matters

Assam Police Act, 2007 – Section 14(2) – Assam Police Manual – Rule 63(iii) – Deputy Commissioner would not be competent to assess the overall performance of Superintendent of Police (SP) – Rule 63(iii) of Assam Police Manual invalid on the ground that it is in direct conflict with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Recovery of personal/promotional pay scale benefits – Benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to Appellants/Ayurvedic Medical Officers by the State of Uttarakhand – Benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State of Uttarakhand – By the order dated 8th November 2006, the personal time-bound pay scale was granted to the appellants, subject to the condition that if the Government takes any decision to the contrary, the amount will be recovered from the salary of the concerned medical officers – Recovery order upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BALBIR SINGH BHANDARI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…

Service Matters

The state argued the forgery was serious misconduct and made appointments illegal – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and ruled that the appellants were entitled to continue in their service – The court found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Appellants and directed the State to pay the appellants’ salaries with arrears and continue their service.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RADHEY SHYAM YADAV AND ANOTHER ETC — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.