Category: Service

Service Matters

Service Law – Relaxation – Eligibility qualifications – State had power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could not have been done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change, and opportunity to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete with others

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANKITA THAKUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Manoj Misra and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Service Matters

Forfeiture of gratuity – Compulsory retirement; removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment and dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment are distinct and separate punishments – Act of forfeiture of gratuity is not envisaged as the provisions are silent on the aspect of forfeiture in case of compulsory retirement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTIRMAY RAY — Appellant Vs. THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,…

Service Matters

HELD clearly of the view that the manner in which the applicants have been denied empanelment for the post of Colonel on a selection basis is arbitrary. Besides being violative of the fundamental principles of fairness embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution, the whole approach has been contrary to both the judgment of this Court in Nitisha as well as the applicable policy framework laid down by the Army authorities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NITISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – Post of Village Development Officers – A candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority – Advertisement clearly specified the essential qualification was a Course of Computer Concept Certificate – Appellants despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, having failed to do so, nothing survives on this count – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Kerala Irrigation Engineering Service Special Rules, 2010 – Challenge to antedating of a seniority list – Not find that any case has been made out for interference in appeal for the reason that appellant has not been able to demonstrate that for the purpose of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer, he was likely to be affected by antedating the date of promotion of the private respondents as separate quotas had been prescribed for promotion to the next higher post for the categories of Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. ANIL CHANDRAN — Appellant Vs. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 – Rule 14(b) – Appointment – Post of Police Constable – Suppression of information – A candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment – Candidate not disclosed the complete information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt of suppressing the material information – Candidate not be entitled to appointment.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TAMILNADU, MYLAPORE — Appellant Vs. J. RAGHUNEES — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Service Matters

Dismissal of candidature as Assistant Engineer he was colour blind – Colour vision deficiency is neither impairment of vision and in that sense falling within the disability spectrum calling for treatment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor is it of such condition as to bar sufficiently qualified persons’ entitlement to be employed in an organization that can accommodate educational attainments and talents – HELD Corporation is directed to appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE (Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay, from the date he was terminated from service, or his appointment was cancelled

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMED IBRAHIM — Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Claim of benefits – Delay and laches – – Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy -But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied – Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BICHITRANANDA BEHERA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

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.