Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 — Rule 21 — Stepping up of a pay of Government Employee on the basis of the pay of his junior — Whether the principle of stepping up the pay of an employee based on the pay of a junior applies when the appellants are on a lesser pay scale than Assistant Professors appointed before them as ad hoc lecturers and subsequently regularized — Whether Rule 21 of the 2002 Pay Rules applies to the appellants’ situation, where juniors are paid more due to their ad hoc services being counted for Senior Scale/Selection Grade — The appellants argued that they are entitled to pay parity with their juniors under Rule 21, as they belong to the same cadre and the anomaly in pay is due to the application of the rule — The respondents contended that Rule 21 does not apply as the anomaly is not a direct result of the rule but due to the juniors’ ad hoc services being counted — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Rule 21 is inapplicable as the anomaly is not a direct result of the rule — The court reasoned that granting the appellants’ request would result in inequity, as they would benefit from years of service they did not render — The appeals were dismissed, and Rule 21 was deemed inapplicable in this case.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 608 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Service Matters
Service

Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) eligibility — The Court clarified that the benefits of CAS are not automatically granted to all Assistant Professors — Instead, eligibility is subject to fulfilling certain conditions, including completion of a specific number of years of service after “regular appointment” — The Court held that redesignation from one post to another does not automatically qualify as “regular appointment”.

Aug 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 581 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR — Appellant Vs. DR. ZABAR SINGH SOLANKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Removal from Service — Respondent appointed as Inspector in 1960 and later as Assistant Registrar, faced multiple charges of misconduct, including unauthorized appointments and financial irregularities —The main issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent removal of from service were justified —The State of Rajasthan argued that respondent’s actions demonstrated insubordination and financial misconduct, justifying his removal — Respondent contended that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed and that there was no substantial evidence to support the charges against him —Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s decision, reinstating the removal order against respondent —The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges —The Court emphasized that it is not the role of the High Court to reappraise evidence in disciplinary matters unless there is a clear violation of natural justice —The Supreme Court restored the removal order, finding no procedural impropriety or lack of evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 592 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHUPENDRA SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Pay fixation error — The appellant, a retired government employee, was promoted and received a revised pay scale — Years after retirement, the government sought to recover excess payments due to a pay fixation error — Whether the government can retrospectively reduce the appellant’s pay scale and recover excess payments after retirement — The appellant argued that the government resolution protecting promotions before a certain date was misinterpreted, and the recovery was arbitrary and violated natural justice —The State of Bihar contended that the resolution applied uniformly and the recovery was justified due to the error in pay fixation —The Supreme Court quashed the government’s order to reduce the pay scale and recover excess payments, ruling it illegal and arbitrary —The court emphasized that the appellant’s promotion was valid and protected by the resolution, and the recovery was unjustified after such a long period —The court cited precedents where recovery of excess payments was deemed inequitable if not promptly addressed and without employee fault —The appellant’s pay scale and pension were restored, and any recovered amounts were to be reimbursed with interest.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 591 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan,…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Termination — The Supreme Court upheld the termination of a CRPF constable’s services for concealing information about pending criminal cases against him in his verification roll — The court held that the CRPF constable had deliberately withheld material information from the CRPF while filling up the verification roll, despite being aware of the FIR registered against him and the ensuing criminal cases — The court noted that the standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a law enforcement agency must always be higher and more rigorous — The court also held that the CRPF had exercised its discretion as an employer in a reasonable manner and the decision to terminate the services of the constable was justified.

Jul 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 550 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHISHU PAL @ SHIV PAL — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Promotion — Completion of the required service period for promotion does not automatically entitle an employee to be promoted from the date the position became vacant — The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but it does not translate into a vested right for promotion unless the rules explicitly provide for it. Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is expressly provided by the relevant service rules – that promotion to a higher position should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which a vacancy may have arisen — The court reiterated that no retrospective promotion can be granted unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules.

Jul 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 549 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DHARAMDEO DAS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Service Matters
Service

Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 531 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HIMAL KUMARI AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Service Matters
Service

Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Rule 5(1) – Two judicial officers challenged the promotion process for Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District Judge, arguing that the High Court of Gujarat incorrectly applied the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ instead of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ as stipulated by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – The main issue was whether the promotion process adhered to the principle and if the final Select List was in contravention of this principle – The petitioners contended that the High Court wrongly assessed all eligible candidates for a minimum merit level and then promoted them based on seniority, which equates to ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ – The High Court argued that ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ should not be confused with pure merit and that seniority should also be considered – The Court analyzed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32, the legislative history of the 2005 Rules, and the decision in All India Judges’ Association (3), emphasizing the need for merit-based criteria for promotion in the Higher Judicial Service – The final decision on the promotion process’s adherence to ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ was to be determined.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 436 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y.…

Constitution Service

Judicial Services – Judicial Appointment – Minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat – The petitioners argue that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – The respondents argue that the selection process is legally valid and in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations – The court concludes that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is permissible and is not in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others – The court also finds that the impugned selection process in the State of Bihar and Gujarat is legally valid and is upheld – The court further concludes that the non-consultation with the Public Service Commission would not render the Gujarat Rules, 2005 (as amended in 2011) void – The writ petitions are dismissed without any order on cost.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHIMEET SINHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant…

Service Matters
Service

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Sections 70(2) and 95(1) – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak(Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 – Rule 7A – Appointment – Denial of – Appellant was denied appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III despite passing the selection exam and the High Court’s ruling in her favor – The main issue was the State Government’s refusal to appoint the appellant based on amended rules, which were applied retrospectively – The appellant argued that the denial of appointment was illegal and arbitrary, and that she fulfilled all qualifications for the post – The State contended that the appellant was not eligible for appointment due to the retrospective application of Rule 7-A – The Supreme Court directed the appellant’s appointment to an equivalent post, without back wages but with compensation for the arbitrary denial of her rightful claim – The Court found the State’s actions to be mala fide and arbitrary, as they denied the appellant’s legitimate claim despite multiple court orders – Referencing the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the duty to provide restitution for arbitrary actions – The Court allowed the appeals, ordered the appellant’s appointment, and granted compensation, highlighting the need for restitutive relief.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMITA SHRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

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