Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Appellant has to be reinstated with continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment as full-time Gallery Attendant in July 2002, but without back wages for the period between 18.12.2012 to 22.08.2013, when the Appellant did not work. The Appellant shall, however, be entitled to differential salary, if any, between the post of full-time Gallery Attendant and part-time Gallery Attendant from 25th July 2002 onwards

Feb 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD RAVJIBHAI RAJPUT — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

STA Rules – Rule 5 – Seniority and pensionary benefits – Appellants are not entitled to have seniority determined in respect of vacancies of Inspector which arose prior to 07.12.2002 – Appellants are eligible to be considered for promotion from 20.01.2003 and they are entitled to add their service as Data Entry Operator Grade ‘B’ for the purpose of the 2002 Inspector Rules HELD This Court direct that the promotions shall be notional where promotions have already been effected, however, entitling the parties to seniority and pensionary benefits

Feb 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D. RAGHU AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. R. BASAVESWARUDU AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Indian Railway Establishment Manual – Clause 129 – Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – Appointment – Entitlement to Financial upgradation-Tribunal would independently apply their mind to the facts and the legal position after calling upon the appellant, that is, the Southern Railway, Trivandrum and the respondents, that is, the original applicants before the Tribunal to file additional affidavits, if required and necessary

Feb 4, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ROSAMMA BENNY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Sections 2(n), 3, 9 and 11 – University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 – Regulations 5 and 8 – Sexual harassment at workplace – Termination – Whether the order issued under the signatures of ViceChancellor of the Central University of Kerala is simplicitor termination or exfacie stigmatic? HELD exfacie stigmatic, employee reinstated.  

Jan 28, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V. — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

Service Matters
Service

Army Act, 1950 – Section 20 – Army Rules, 1954 – Rule 17 – Dismissal by Chief of the Army Staff – While exercising the power under Section 20 of the Army Act, the only procedure which is required to be followed would be under rule 17 of the Army Rules, namely, a person who is sought to be dismissed or removed from service has been informed of the particulars of the cause of action against him and allowed reasonable time to state in writing any reasons

Jan 25, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY MARUTIRAO PATIL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Appointment of Vice­Principal – it is seen that Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII would indicate that the prior approval from the University is required to be taken. However, the tabular form extracted and taken note by the Division Bench in para 6 of the order would indicate that on most of the occasions the approval has been granted post facto -It is no doubt true that when a procedure is contemplated the same is required to be followed. However, in the present fact the very manner in which the appellants have proceeded to deny the benefit to the respondent would indicate that the action is not bonafide

Jan 24, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNING BODY SWAMI SHRADDHANAND COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. AMAR NATH JHA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, 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