Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Compassionate Appointment Service

Compassionate Appointment – The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased – respondent a married daughter her elder sister application for appointment already dismissed HELD respondent not dependent on her mother so claim for appointment on death of mother rejected.

Oct 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI) — Respondent ( Before…

Service Matters
Service

In a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and matter should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated.

Sep 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYATS AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM — Appellant Vs. S. ARICHANDRAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna…

Service Matters
Service

Mistake of State who issued impugned circular – State was not justified in ordering recovery of the excess amount paid with interest, more particularly, when it is reported that some of the doctors/dentists – members of the association have retired on attaining the age of superannuation and the recovery shall be from their pension/pensionary benefits.

Sep 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M.P. MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Service Matters
Service

HELD reinstatement of an employee who was dismissed as a result of disciplinary proceedings, and was only reinstated in service because of his acquittal in criminal proceedings, but again the reasons which weighed with the Court in such cases were that in almost in all such cases, the acquittal was an honourable acquittal and not an acquittal on a technicality, or on acquittal given because of “benefit of doubt”.

Sep 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PHOOL SINGH — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw