Category: Service

Service Matters

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 311 – Misdemeanour and corruption in discharge of judicial functions were received during the probation period. HELD If the genesis of the order of termination of service lies in a specific act of misconduct, regardless of over all satisfactory performance of duties during the probation period, the Court will be well within its reach to unmask the hidden cause and hold that the simplicitor order of termination

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT — Appellant Vs. VED PRIYA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant.,…

Service Matters

Bharat Petroleum Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff, 1976 – Rules 3(e), 3(g) and 3(h) – Punishment of dismissal – Corporation is aggrieved to the extent the impugned order sets aside the order of punishment on the ground that the chargesheet had not been issued by the disciplinary authority. The employee is aggrieved by the grant of liberty to the Corporation for issuance of fresh chargesheet, and denial of back wages while granting reinstatement. In the interregnum, the employee has attained the age of superannuation HELD The term Competent Authority will include a disciplinary authority so authorised in the manner prescribed in 3(h) under the delegation of authority manual. Appeal Allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ANIL PADEGAONKAR — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ ) Civil…

Service Matters

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 372 – Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 – Rule 40(6) – Family pension – Rule 40(6) is conditional in nature and does not vest an automatic statutory right in appellant no.1 to equal share in the family pension – Family pension would be payable to more than one wife only if the government servant had made a nomination to that effect and which option was open to him under the Pension Rules

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961 – HELD the Division Bench of the High Court has completely erred in law in holding that the appellant has delayed the challenge of his appointment vide order dated 22nd December, 2010. The appellant was appointed pursuant to a direction issued earlier by the Division Bench. The Division Bench has directed to re-cast the select list and in such select list,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. JAYACHANDRAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 HELD our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N.C. SANTHOSH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A. S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Service Matters

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – Section 1 – Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP)- ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy – Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer – HELD Impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M.V. MOHANAN NAIR — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Service Matters

HELD Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services – Judicial review – Dismissal – Disciplinary action – Natural suspicion as to the integrity and honesty of the appellant in several land acquisition cases – Held, There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of the appellant – The order of dismissal dated 17.01.2006 passed by Respondent No. 1 is set-aside, and the appellant’s prayers for reinstatement with consequential benefits including retiral benefits, is accepted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SADHNA CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI , B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant,…

You missed