Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Daily wagers who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1999 shall be regularized as regular employees with effect from 01.01.2000 and shall be placed in the time-scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the university subject to certain terms and conditions

Aug 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VICE CHANCELLOR ANAND AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY — Appellant Vs. KANUBHAI NANUBHAI VAGHELA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose,…

Service Matters
Service

Caste Certificate Rules – High Court grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant held a valid caste certificate from the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a) in Form 10 in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the genuineness and validity of which was not in question before it – Furthermore, the appellant was not seeking the reserved status for the purpose of education or employment

Aug 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUNA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments HELD Determination of Seniority – Services rendered by the ad hoc appointees prior to their regularisation as per the 1979 Rules shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis-à-vis, the direct recruits who were appointed prior to 1989 and they are not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1985.

Aug 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASHI MANI MISHRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

Service Matters
Service

Penalty of compulsory retirement from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge – Multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money, it cannot be said that Full Court was not justified in taking the view that it did – Compulsory retirement upheld

Aug 4, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER GOEL — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi,…

Service Matters
Service

Criterion of “seniority – cum – merit” in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made

Aug 1, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TEK CHAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (B.B.M.S.) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Higher Pay Scale – Grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State – Employees of Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in State of Punjab

Jul 18, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BALBIR KUMAR WALIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan…

Service Matters
Service

Termination – Back wages -The High Court in fact set aside the direction of the Tribunal to reinstate by creating a supernumerary post – This is not challenged by Respondent No. 1 – It directed only that the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 be made in the vacancy – Therefore, the claim of Respondent No. 1 for back wages from the date of termination is at any rate clearly untenable.

May 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMALINI KHILAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and K.M. Joseph, 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