Supreme Court of India Judgements

47030 Judgements hosted as on 11/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Back-wages – In the case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages is normal rule and the adjudicating authority to take into consideration the length of service of the employee, nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employer and similar other factors – High Court has correctly granted 50% of the back wages to the respondent.

Nov 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAM BAHADUR YADAV — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Charge of causing loss – Recovery – Whether the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56, which was also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer – Held, It is required to be noted that in so far as the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56, it was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LUCKNOW AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

Service Matters
Service

An employee could be said to be suffering from stagnation as per the office order only if he possessed the requisite qualification for the next higher post and was unable to get the higher post on account of non availability of such post – Claim of the respondents based on the office order, for getting the pay scale of the next higher post – without assuming the responsibilities of the said promotional posts, was thoroughly misconceived. What they were entitled to, as per the scheme to alleviate the stagnation as contained in the office,

Nov 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BAL KRISHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…

Service Matters
Service

Relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right – If a conscious decision is taken not to grant the relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service – High Court has committed a grave error in issuing the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to grant relaxation in the qualifying service – Appeal allowed.

Nov 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIKASH KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ…

Service Matters
Service

Without commenting on the legality of the decision to discontinue the said provision in the pension scheme by the employer, as the pensioner was not alive on the date of discontinuance – It appropriate to pass necessary orders in her favor in this proceeding itself – Resultantly, the sum due and payable under the Pension scheme be computed and the same is ordered to be disbursed to the appellant – Amount earlier refunded to the appellant be adjusted suitably during the remittance process – Respondent/ employer should do the needful in terms of this order within 8 weeks – Appeal allowed.

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  VEENA PANDEY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

Uttar Pradesh (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constable Rules, 2008 – Police Constables Recruitment – There is no bar in intimating the candidates through SMS, more particularly when large number of candidates had to appear in the subsequent process and majority of the candidates have appeared for document verification and physical fitness test pursuant to intimation by SMS.

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Summary dismissal of an earlier petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not bar the present writ petition on grounds of res judicata as there has been no substantive decision on the merits of the issues. HELD Court must be alive to the contemporary reality of “ambush Public Interest Litigations” and interpret the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata in a manner which does not debar access to justice – Jurisdiction under Article 32 is a fundamental right in and of itself.

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Service Matters
Service

Claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into – Respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016 – Appeal allowed.

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASHISH AWASTHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw