Service Archives - Page 3 of 82 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

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.…

Constitution Service

Judicial Services – Judicial Appointment – Minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat – The petitioners argue that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – The respondents argue that the selection process is legally valid and in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations – The court concludes that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is permissible and is not in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others – The court also finds that the impugned selection process in the State of Bihar and Gujarat is legally valid and is upheld – The court further concludes that the non-consultation with the Public Service Commission would not render the Gujarat Rules, 2005 (as amended in 2011) void – The writ petitions are dismissed without any order on cost.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHIMEET SINHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant…

Service

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Sections 70(2) and 95(1) – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak(Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 – Rule 7A – Appointment – Denial of – Appellant was denied appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III despite passing the selection exam and the High Court’s ruling in her favor – The main issue was the State Government’s refusal to appoint the appellant based on amended rules, which were applied retrospectively – The appellant argued that the denial of appointment was illegal and arbitrary, and that she fulfilled all qualifications for the post – The State contended that the appellant was not eligible for appointment due to the retrospective application of Rule 7-A – The Supreme Court directed the appellant’s appointment to an equivalent post, without back wages but with compensation for the arbitrary denial of her rightful claim – The Court found the State’s actions to be mala fide and arbitrary, as they denied the appellant’s legitimate claim despite multiple court orders – Referencing the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the duty to provide restitution for arbitrary actions – The Court allowed the appeals, ordered the appellant’s appointment, and granted compensation, highlighting the need for restitutive relief.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMITA SHRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Service

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 – Rule 6(h) – House Rent Allowance (HRA) – The appellant, a retired Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, was charged with unauthorized House Rent Allowance (HRA) drawals and asked to repay Rs.3,96,814/-.- The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to HRA while sharing government accommodation allotted to his retired father – The appellant argued that the quarter was allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he only occasionally shared it, thus he should not be charged HRA – The State contended that the appellant was not entitled to HRA as per Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) because he shared rent-free accommodation allotted to his father – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and the recovery notice – The Court found no application for Rule 6(h)(iv) in the appellant’s case and held that clauses 6(h)(i) and (ii) covered the controversy – The Court reasoned that since the appellant shared accommodation with a retired government servant, he was not entitled to claim HRA – The appeal is dismissed as devoid of force, and the recovery notice was justified in the eyes of the law

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 365 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R.K. MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Service

”Backlog Vacancies Get Priority: Supreme Court Orders Re-appointment Based on Reservation Rules” Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – Rule 6 – Appointment – The case revolves around a service dispute regarding the appointment to a Scheduled Tribes (ST) reserved post at Bangalore University – The appellant was appointed based on merit, while respondent no. 7 was within the preferential age bracket – The main issue is whether the 2001 Rules apply to the university’s appointment process and if the appointment of the appellant, who was outside the age bracket, was legal – The appellant argued that the university should be governed by the Universities Act, not the 2001 Rules – Respondent no. 7 claimed that the university’s advertisement declaring the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was correct – The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the university’s advertisement was binding and the 2001 Rules were applicable – The court cited the amendment to Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990, and subsequent government letters as mandating the university to follow the 2001 Rules for filling backlog vacancies – The court found that the university’s conduct in advertising the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was in compliance with statutory requirements and government demands – The court concluded that respondent no. 7 should be appointed as per the 2001 Rules and suggested the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 367 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,…

Service

A. Education Law – The case involves a service rule amendment by the State of Madhya Pradesh, impacting job aspirants – The amendment was later recalled, but not before affecting an ongoing recruitment process – The main issue was the application of the amended rule to the recruitment process, leading to legal challenges and the question of whether meritorious reservation category candidates should be treated as unreserved at the preliminary examination stage – The petitioners challenged the validity of the amended rule and its application to the recruitment process, arguing it caused injustice to candidates who had already cleared the main examination – The State and MPPSC defended the amended rule’s application and the subsequent recruitment process, including the normalization method used for merging examination results – The Court dismissed the civil appeal, finding no merit in the challenge against the High Court’s judgment, which had directed a special main examination for newly eligible candidates – The Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that holding a special main examination was justified and that the normalization process was consistent with legal requirements – The Court referred to precedents affirming that meritorious reservation category candidates are entitled to be selected in the open category without counting against the reserved quota – The Supreme Court concluded that the normalization process was transparent and fair, and upheld the High Court’s judgment directing the completion of the recruitment process as per the unamended rules. B. Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – Rule 4 of 2015 Rules was amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh – The Supreme Court of India dismissed a civil appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (MPPSC) decision to normalize the marks of candidates who appeared in two different main examinations – The court found that the process of normalization and the consequent merger of marks secured by the candidates in the two main examinations was transparent and above board – The court also noted that the earlier amendment to the rules, which harmed the interests of reservation category candidates, was restored, enabling the drawing up of the result of the preliminary examination by segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates – The court concluded that the impugned judgment did not brook interference on any ground, be it on facts or in law.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

UPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

You missed

Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served

Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State

Supreme Court of India Judgements

Category: Service

You missed