Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: Service Law

SERVICE LAWS - SUPREME COURT ANNUAL DIGEST 2024

Administration

Constitution of India - Article 16(1), 16(4) and 335 - Efficiency of Administration - Article 335 does not limit sub-classification; rather, it reinforces the importance of inclusion and equality in public services in line with Article 16(1). State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538

In public law proceedings, when it is realised that the prayer in the writ petition is unattainable due to passage of time, constitutional courts may not dismiss the writ proceedings on the ground of their perceived futility. In the life of litigation, passage of time can stand both as an ally and adversary. Our duty is to transcend the constraints of time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action. By taking the first step, the primary purpose and object of public law proceedings will be subserved. (Para 20) Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2024 SC 1265 : (2024) 3 SCC 563

While the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice. (Para 19) Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2024 SC 1265 : (2024) 3 SCC 563

Age

Supreme Court imposes 1 lakh cost on man for repeated litigations to change birth date in service records. Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (Rajasthan); Rule 13(v) which provides for age relaxation to the persons serving under educational projects is challenged to be discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Fixing of minimum and maximum age requirement is a policy decision – There was a valid classification based on intelligible differentia which distinguished applicants with project experience and those who lacked project experience. Further the differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules. Held, the historical background leading to the enactment of the Rules itself provides a justification for granting relaxation to the persons serving under the educational project, if they fulfil the condition that they were within the age limit when they were initially engaged. Hence, relaxation provided for in Rule 13(v) is not arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 22, 24 & 25) Mahesh Chand Bareth v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 442

Appointment

There cannot be a discrimination amongst the homogenous class of the candidates based on their date of admission who secured admission to the same course through the same process in the same academic session while determining their eligibility for getting an appointment to a particular position. Manilal v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : AIR 2024 SC 4404

Supreme Court grants relief to UPSC aspirant who missed re-medical test in 2014, allows his appointment on clearing test. Rakshit Shivam Prakash v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 547

City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 (Bihar) - The candidate, who applied for the position of City Manager scored 22.575 marks (32.14%) out of 70, which exceeded the required 32% threshold. However, her candidature was rejected due to having zero work experience. The BSSC had considered work experience as part of the minimum qualifying marks, thus counting her total score out of 100 marks instead of just the written examination score. The Supreme Court, upholding the High Court's findings, ruled that the BSSC's approach was contrary to the statutory rules, and clarified that while work experience marks should be considered in the final merit list, the candidate's qualifying score in the written exam entitled her to be included in the merit list. The appeal by the BSSC was dismissed. (Para 16) Bihar Staff Selection Commission v. Himal Kumari, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Supreme Court delivers split verdict on appointment of Shiksha Karmi's in Madhya Pradesh. Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Armed Forces

Grant of Permanent Commission to Short Service Commissioned (SSC) Officer in the Army Dental Corps (AD Corps) - Whether the appellant, a Short Service Commissioned officer, is entitled to parity with similarly situated officers who were granted permanent commission following the judgment in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 by the AFT, Principal Bench. Whether the exclusion of the appellant from consideration for permanent commission violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Held, the appellant, having acquired eligibility for a third chance for permanent commission prior to the amendment of Army Instructions (AI) No. 37/78 on March 20, 2013, is entitled to the same relief as granted to similarly situated officers in O.A. No. 111 of 2013. The exclusion of the appellant on the basis of not being a party to the earlier litigation is unjustified, as per the principle that similarly situated individuals should benefit from judicial declarations without being compelled to litigate individually. The delay in approaching the Tribunal is satisfactorily explained, given the appellant's personal and professional circumstances, including maternity leave and the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant is granted Permanent Commission in the Army Dental Corps with retrospective effect from the date when similarly situated officers were granted the same pursuant to the judgment in O.A. No. 111 of 2013. All consequential benefits, including seniority, promotions, monetary benefits, and arrears, are directed to be extended to the appellant within four weeks. The judgment of the AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow, dated January 5, 2022, in O.A. No. 241 of 2021, is quashed and set aside. The judgment reinforces the principle of equality in service matters and mandates the extension of benefits to all similarly situated individuals without the need for repeated litigation. It also emphasizes the application of Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice in unique circumstances. Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 961

Army - Family Pension - "battle casualty" and "physical casualty" - The deceased, an Army personnel, died while on duty as part of an Area Domination Patrol near the Line of Control (LoC) under extreme climatic conditions. Initially classified as a "battle casualty," his death was later reclassified as a "physical casualty." The respondent, his widow, was granted a Special Family Pension but denied a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP). The Armed Forces Tribunal ruled in her favor, granting her LFP and an ex-gratia lump sum. Whether the death of the deceased qualifies as a "battle casualty" under Clause 1(g) of Appendix 'A' of Army Order 1 of 2003 and falls under Category E(f) of the Liberalised Pensionary Awards, 2001. Held, a soldier's death due to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions while serving in operational areas near the LoC qualifies as a "battle casualty," entitling the family to Liberalised Family Pension under relevant regulations. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the death of the deceased due to cardiopulmonary arrest caused by extreme climatic conditions while operating near the LoC qualified as a "battle casualty" under Clause 1(g) of Appendix 'A' of Army Order 1 of 2003. The death also fell under Category E(f) of the 2001 Pensionary Awards, covering deaths in war-like situations, including those caused by extreme climatic conditions near the LoC. The Court criticized the appellants for their lack of sympathy and unnecessary litigation against the widow of a deceased soldier. Reliance on precedents Kanchan Dua v. Union of India, (2020) 18 SCC 709 and Radhika Devi v. Union of India, (2020) 18 SCC 715 was held inapplicable due to differing facts. The appellants were directed to implement the Tribunal's order within three months and pay Rs. 50,000 as costs to the respondent within two months. Union of India v. Saroj Devi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 942

Pay disparity between Artificers and non-technical Chief Petty Officers in the Indian Navy - Equivalence of ranks and grade pay under the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations - Held, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision regarding the disparity in grade pay for Artificers in the Indian Navy. Artificers of Class III, II, and I, while considered equivalent in seniority to Chief Petty Officers (non-technical), are not entitled to the same grade pay since they are subordinate to Chief Artificers. The rank of Chief Artificer is a promotional post for Artificers of Classes III to I, and Artificers III to I cannot be directly promoted to the Master Chief Artificer rank. The differentiation in grade pay, where Artificers III to I receive ₹3,400 (between Artificer IV's ₹2,800 and Chief Artificer's ₹4,200), is neither illegal nor arbitrary. The Court found no merit in the appellant's claim of discrimination and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the classification of grade pay was justified based on rank and command hierarchy. Appeals dismissed. Manish Kumar Rai v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Disciplinary proceedings in the Armed Forces and proportionality of punishment - Vindictive actions by superior officers and protection of personnel rights - Award of compensation for harassment and long-drawn litigation - Held, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by a former Air Force personnel, seeking compensation for wrongful disciplinary action by his superior, leading to mental harassment and prolonged litigation. The Court affirmed that the Armed Forces Tribunal rightly set aside the admonition order, recognizing the disproportionate and vindictive actions of the respondent officer in handling a minor disciplinary issue. The appellant's initial unblemished service record and the disproportionate punishment inflicted were taken into account. The Court awarded ₹1,00,000 as compensation for the undue distress caused, emphasizing the need for maintaining proportionality in disciplinary measures and protecting the dignity of personnel. The institution's failure to intervene appropriately was also criticized. S.P. Pandey v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) - Termination of Employment for Suppression of Information in Verification Roll - Whether Justified ? The respondent had deliberately withheld material information regarding a pending criminal case, despite having knowledge of it, and had made false statements in his Verification Roll and during disciplinary proceedings. Upholding the employer's decision to terminate the respondent's employment, the Court emphasized the importance of maintaining high moral standards, particularly in law enforcement agencies, where credibility and trustworthiness are paramount. (Para 24 - 25) Union of India v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 507 : AIR 2024 SC 3652

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949; Section 11 (1) and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955; Rule 27 – Punishment of compulsory retirement is challenged – The respondent was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his colleague. The punishment of compulsory retirement is not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the punishment awarded. The punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent is affirmed. (Para 35 & 36) Union of India v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 366 : AIR 2024 SC 2405

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949; Section 11 (1) and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955; Rule 27 – Validity of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules – Whether Rule 27 to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable and void? – Held, Section 11 expressly uses the phrase “subject to any rules made under this Act” which conveys the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions subject to which it is made. When the enabling Act itself permits its modification by rules, the rules made prevail over the provision in the Act. Hence, the Central Government in exercise of its general rule-making power, can prescribe punishments other than those specified in section 11, including the punishment of compulsory retirement. Prescribing the punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 27 cannot be said to be ultra vires Section 11 of the CRPF Act. (Para 28, 29, 32, 33) Union of India v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 366 : AIR 2024 SC 2405

Premature Discharge - Compensatory jurisprudence – Case of wrong medical diagnosis causing premature discharge from service – In case of premature discharge from service of armed forces, extreme caution and care in ensuring correct diagnoses was required. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) failed to observe that there is no medical literature to show that the appellant was suffering from AIDS defining illness. In spite of being aware of the adverse and pernicious impact on the appellant, respondents acted grossly careless and negligent. The appellant had submitted four diagnostic reports, showing that his CD4 cell count was above 300 cells/mm3, as opposed to the respondents' 2003 Guidelines defining an AIDS illness to be one where the CD4 cell count is below 200 cells/mm3. The Medical Board, arbitrarily, wrongly and rejected the appellant's prayer on flimsy and wrong grounds by applying the 1992 Guidelines. Held, the appellant's reinstatement in service is not an available option now and also that direction for grant of pension, cannot be considered an equitable restitution of what the appellant has suffered by reason of psychological, financial and physical trauma, hence monetary compensation on account of wrongful termination of services is awarded to the appellant. (Para 6, 7, 8, 9 & 23) Satyanand Singh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 247 : AIR 2024 SC 1659

Military Nursing Service - Terminating women officer on ground of marriage - Such rule was exfacie manifestly arbitrary, as terminating employment because the woman has got married is a coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality. Acceptance of such patriarchal rule undermines human dignity, right to non-discrimination and fair treatment. Laws and regulations based on gender-based bias are constitutionally impermissible. Rules making marriage of women employees and their domestic involvement a ground for disentitlement would be unconstitutional. Union of India v. Ex. Lt. Selina John, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 135

Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) Rules, 2010; Rule 61 - Free Accommodation - All CISF personnel entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) if they are not provided accommodation. Union of India v. Paramisivan M., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Section 31 - The recruitment was not confined to the priority / reserved class rather it was open for general category also in case vacancies remain available. The Recruitment application(s) clearly establishes that the appellants have applied as a general category candidate(s) against the surplus seats/vacancies remaining unfilled after considering the priority/reserved quota for relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen, etc. In a situation, when they have not claimed any enrollment/recruitment on the basis of relationship with servicemen/ex-servicemen, there was no occasion for them to submit any relationship certificate. The discharge/dismissal of the appellants from service is vitiated on grounds that they have actually not produced any relationship certificate for selection/recruitment as they never applied in the reserved category. The discharge/dismissal order of the appellants is certainly invalid for want of nonconsideration of the plea taken by the appellants. (Para 17, 24) No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 102 : AIR 2024 SC 921

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007' Section 31 - It was not the case of the respondents ever that the vacancies on which the appellants have been enrolled/recruited were only for the alleged reserved category and not for general category. Subsequent improvement in defence and supplementing reasoning of discharge/dismissal which is not contained in the order impugned is not permissible in law. (Para 23) No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 102 : AIR 2024 SC 921

Career Advancement Scheme

Eligibility of re-designated Research Assistants for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Held: Research Assistants, although re-designated as Lecturers or Assistant Professors, do not qualify for CAS benefits unless they were directly recruited as Assistant Professors. The CAS requires eight years of service following a "regular appointment," a term that excludes re-designation. The Court emphasized the distinction between cadres of re-designated and directly appointed Assistant Professors and clarified that such differentiation is crucial for determining benefits under the CAS. Additionally, the Court ruled that any benefits already paid to the respondents should not be recovered, though future benefits would be calculated notionally, excluding CAS benefits. Rajasthan Agricultural University v. Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 555 : AIR 2024 SC 3941

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

The Supreme Court upheld a rule issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) barring Chartered Accountants from accepting more than the "specified number of tax audit assignments" (at present, the upper limit is set at 60) in a financial year. The rule (para 6.0 of Chapter VI of the Council Guidelines No. 1-CA(7)/02/2008 dt. 08/08/2008 and the subsequent amendments) are not violative of the fundamental right to practise profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The clause will be deemed to be effective from 01.04.2024 and quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the members for violation of the clause. The ICAI will be at liberty to enhance the number of audits that a CA can undertake. Shaji Paulose v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) - Role of the ICAI - ICAI has, over time, received recognition as a premier accounting body domestically and globally for maintaining the highest standards. The ICAI has also played a significant role in ensuring the dynamism of the CA course and the credibility of the examination. We commend that the ICAI must be committed towards the convergence of accounting and ethical standards with international standards. The true test, however, lies in enforcement of these standards. (Para 48) Shaji Paulose v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949; Section 29A and 21A(4), Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007; Rule 9(3)(b) - Rule 9(3)(b) of subordinate legislation challenged as being ultra vires, on the ground that it exceeds the Rule making power under Section 29A(2)(c) of the parent Act. The power to make rules generally for carrying out the provisions of the Act is found in Section 29A(1). Section 29A(2) is only illustrative and should not be construed as limiting the scope of the general power of the Central Government to make rules under Section 29A(1). Even if specific topics are not explicitly listed in the statute, the formulation of rules can be justified if it falls within the general power conferred, provided it stays within the overall scope of the Act. The impugned Rule 9(3)(b) falls within the scope of the general delegation of power under Section 29A(1). Hence the Impugned Rule is not ultra vires the Parent Act. (Para 34 & 37) Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 101 : AIR 2024 SC 1139

Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007; Rule 9(3)(b) and The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949; Section 21A(4) and 29A - Rule 9(3)(b) of subordinate legislation challenged on the ground of being 'ultra vires' to Section 21A(4) of the parent Act. In cases where the Board disagrees with the opinion of the Director, under Section 21A(4) the Board may advise the Director to further investigate the matter. However, Rule 9(3) does not limit itself to directions for further investigation. It also enables the Board to straightaway proceed to act by itself or refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee, depending on whether the alleged misconduct relates to the First Schedule or Second Schedule. The 'prima facie' opinion of the Director will become nothing but a final opinion if the Board will have no option except to direct the Director to further investigate the matter. The impugned Rule falls within the scope of the general delegation of power under Section 29A(1). (Para 19 & 37) Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 101 : AIR 2024 SC 1139

Principle of 'Generality vs Enumeration' - Where a statute confers particular powers without prejudice to the generality of a general power already conferred, the particular powers are only illustrative of the general power, and do not in any way restrict the general power. The illustrative list of subjects set out in Section 29A(2) cannot be read as exhaustive since the legislature has deployed the expression 'without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions' before enumerating the specific heads for exercising the rule-making power. (Para 32) Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 101 : AIR 2024 SC 1139

Compassionate Appointments

Compassionate Appointment — Time-Barred Claims and Ex-Gratia Compensation — In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the rejection of a claim for compassionate appointment made by the son of a deceased government employee, who had attained the age of majority 11 years after his father's demise. The appellant's claim was rejected on the basis of Haryana Government instructions dated 22.03.1999, which stipulated that a minor dependent must attain the age of majority within three years from the date of the employee's death to qualify for compassionate appointment. The Court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to the general rule of public employment. It emphasized that such appointments are aimed at alleviating immediate financial distress caused by the death of a government employee. The Court further clarified that equality under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity, such as extending benefits beyond the scope of applicable rules or policies. However, recognizing the prolonged pendency of the appellant's claim and the lack of timely communication by the State regarding his mother's entitlement to ex-gratia compensation, the Court directed the State to allow the appellant's mother to submit a representation seeking lump sum ex-gratia compensation under the relevant rules. The State was instructed to decide on the representation within six weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum would apply to any compensation granted. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs. Tinku v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Any appointment obtained through fraudulent means cannot be sustained. Union of India v. Prohlad Guha, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 543 : AIR 2024 SC 3588

Disciplinary Proceedings

Disciplinary Proceedings Post-Retirement - No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee after their retirement or the conclusion of their extended period of service. The employer lacks jurisdiction to commence or continue such proceedings beyond the employee's tenure unless expressly permitted by statutory or contractual provisions. This judgment underscores the principle of finality in employment relationships upon retirement and reinforces the sanctity of procedural timelines in disciplinary matters. State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 901

Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - Major Penalty - Oral Evidence - Legal Principles - Whether disciplinary proceedings imposing a major penalty without recording oral evidence violate the principles of natural justice and statutory rules. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Tribunal's decision quashing the disciplinary authority's penalty order. Held, the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were vitiated as they failed to comply with Rule 7(vii) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. No oral evidence was recorded by the Inquiry Officer, despite the charges constituting a major penalty. The Court reinstated the Tribunal's decision, quashing the penalty order issued by the disciplinary authority and granting the appellant all consequential benefits. Disciplinary inquiries involving major penalties must adhere to procedural safeguards, including the mandatory recording of oral evidence in the presence of the charged officer. Mere reliance on documentary evidence without proving its contents through witnesses violates the principles of natural justice. Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 896

Supreme Court upholds quashing of disciplinary proceedings against professor who couldn't join duty due to covid. Kerala Agricultural University v. T.P. Murali @ Murali Thavara Panen, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 663

When non-renewal of an employee's contract is for disciplinary reasons, formal enquiry is necessary. Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 604 : AIR 2024 SC 4339

Article 226 - High Court should not re-appreciate evidence led in departmental enquiry. State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : AIR 2024 SC 4034

Dying in Harness

When the termination of a contractual appointment is stigmatic, the principles of natural justice have to be followed. Merely because an appointment was made on a contract basis, following an application for compassionate appointment, would not constitute an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 628 : AIR 2024 SC 4424

Examination

State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh); Rule 4(3)(d)(III) – Amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) is challenged to be ultravires– The amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) read as, that meritorious reservation category candidates, who did not avail any benefit of relaxation, are not to be clubbed with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the time of declaring the result of the preliminary examination itself. Such adjustment will only be at the time of final selection, not at the time of preliminary/main examination – Held, amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) patently harmed the interests of the reservation category candidates, as even meritorious candidates from such categories, who had not availed any reservation benefit/relaxation, continued to occupy the reservation category slots which would have otherwise gone to deserving reservation category candidates lower down in the merit list of that category, had they been included with meritorious unreserved category candidates on the strength of their marks. Further held, the State of Madhya Pradesh itself realized the harm that it was doing to the reservation category candidates and chose to restore Rule 4, as it stood earlier, which enabled drawing up the result of the preliminary examination by segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination stage itself. (Para 8, 30 & 32) Deependra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 342 : AIR 2024 SC 2147

State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh) – Normalization of marks – Normalization was undertaken in the context of the marks obtained by candidates in the two main examinations by applying a formula, so as to bring them all on an even keel so as to finalize the list of candidates eligible to be interviewed. This was done by applying a formula uniformly to the marks secured by all the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations, so that their marks would become comparable and enable preparation of a unified marks list. Held, the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations cannot be found fault with. (Para 26 & 29) Deependra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 342 : AIR 2024 SC 2147

Experience

Experience marks cannot be denied solely because a candidate worked as an outsourced manpower. If the candidate performed duties aligned with the sanctioned post, they are eligible for marks, even if the candidate was not appointed on the sanctioned post. Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University v. Monika, 2024 Livelaw (SC) 934

House Rent Allowance

Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 (Jammu and Kashmir) – Rule 6(h)(i) and 6(h)(ii) – Entitlement to claim House Rent Allowance (HRA) – Held, the appellant being a Government employee, could not have claimed HRA while sharing rent free accommodation allotted to his father, a retired Government servant. Hence, appeal is dismissed. (Para 9, 10) R.K. Munshi v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 364 : AIR 2024 SC 2145

Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 (Jammu and Kashmir) – Rule 6(h)(iv) – Claim of HRA after demitting office – Appellant's Retired Father Could Not Claim HRA Upon Suppernuation from service. Held, Rule 6(h)(iv) has no application in present case. (Para 9) R.K. Munshi v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 364 : AIR 2024 SC 2145

Increment

Grant of advance increments for Ph.D. to technical personnel in ICAR - The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, created two services, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Technical Service (TS), governed by separate service rules. The respondents, technical personnel at ICAR, filed applications for two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degrees, similar to those granted to scientists in the ARS under a scheme dated 27.02.1999. The Tribunal and the High Court allowed their claim, equating technical personnel with scientists for this benefit. Whether technical personnel are entitled to the same increments as scientists for obtaining Ph.D. qualifications. Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in applying Article 14 to grant such benefits. Held, Technical personnel and scientists belong to different services, governed by separate rules and qualifications. Merely because both are engaged in the research framework, technical personnel cannot claim the benefits specifically granted to scientists. Article 14 does not apply to such cases of differential treatment based on service rules, and that the benefit of two advance increments for Ph.D. acquisition was part of the pay package exclusively for scientists. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the High Court and Tribunal were set aside. Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Rajinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : AIR 2024 SC 4334

Judicial Service

Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services - Directions Issued - Separate Qualifying Marks - Category-Specific Cut-Offs - Horizontal Reservation - Compliance and Rule Conformity - Prospective Application - High Courts / Public Service Commissions (PSCs) must provide separate qualifying marks in preliminary and mains exams for candidates with benchmark disabilities (PwBD), equivalent to or lower than SC/ST candidates as per relevant rules. Separate cut-offs to be prescribed for PwBD candidates across disability categories (e.g., blindness, low vision, deafness, locomotor disabilities) in preliminary and mains exams to ensure adequate representation in further stages. PwBD candidates qualifying on merit or through reservation to be recruited under horizontal reservation, ensuring proportional representation. High Courts directed to align their recruitment rules with these guidelines and report compliance. Directions to be implemented prospectively in all judicial service recruitments. Matters listed for further hearing after two weeks. This order underscores the judiciary's commitment to inclusivity, ensuring fair opportunities for persons with disabilities in judicial services. In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 873

Articles 217 and 221 - High Court Judges – Equality in Service Benefits and Pension – Non-discrimination based on Recruitment Source – Financial Independence and Judicial Independence - High Court judges, regardless of their source of appointment (from the Bar or district judiciary), are holders of constitutional offices in equal measure. They form a homogeneous class under the Constitution, and any differentiation in their service conditions or retiral benefits based on the source of appointment violates Articles 217 and 221 of the Constitution. Judicial independence, a fundamental aspect of the Constitution's basic structure, is intrinsically linked to the financial independence of judges. Ensuring parity in salaries, allowances, and pensions for all High Court judges is essential to uphold judicial independence. The Constitution mandates non-discrimination in the determination of service conditions and benefits for High Court judges. Conditions of service, including pension benefits, must be uniform and cannot be affected by the source of recruitment. The communication dated 30 December 2022, which excluded judges appointed from the district judiciary under a contributory pension scheme from subscribing to the General Provident Fund, was quashed as unconstitutional. Directions were issued to ensure that all High Court judges, irrespective of their recruitment source, are treated equally with respect to the General Provident Fund and retiral benefits. Contributions to the General Provident Fund are to commence from their date of appointment, and amounts credited under the New Pension Scheme are to be refunded. Communication dated 30 December 2022 is quashed. Petitioners are entitled to equality in pension and service benefits as High Court judges. Justice Shailendra Singh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 872

Validity of judicial conduct inquiries initiated against a Sub-Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate based on an order rendered without considering complete case records - Procedural irregularities in the High Court's early listing and adjudication of the matter without affording adequate opportunity to the appellant's counsel. Held, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's order was rendered without reviewing the sealed case records. The disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of the said legally invalid order were deemed improper. The Court quashed the High Court's orders to their original status. The Chief Justice of the High Court was directed to ensure early hearing of the restored petitions. K. Cheriya Koya v. Mohammed Nazer M.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 789

The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court judgment which was signed and uploaded after the judge's retirement. State v. S. Murali Mohan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 788

High Court Chief Justice cannot individually reconsider judges' appointment, must be collectively done by collegium. Chirag Bhanu Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 664

National Pension Scheme - Compliance with payment of judicial officers' arrears and allowances - Proceedings against various states - General directions were issued for resolving any subsisting grievances of judicial officers and ensuring the establishment of Standard Operating Procedures. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Statutory rules and executive instructions in the recruitment process - The issue concerns the application of unamended Schedule 'B' of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (MJS Rules) in the recruitment process, particularly regarding the evaluation criteria for written and viva voce examinations. The unamended rules provided that the final selection would be based on the cumulative grade value obtained in both the written and viva voce examinations, without prescribing any minimum cut-off for the viva voce segment. Held, amendments made to the rules after the recruitment process commenced, introducing a minimum of 40% qualifying marks for the viva voce, could not be retrospectively applied. The petitioner, having secured a cumulative 50.6% as per the unamended rules, would have qualified under the original scheme. Executive resolutions, such as the Full Court's resolution prescribing a viva voce cut-off, cannot override statutory rules unless those rules are properly amended. Reliance on decisions such as Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of P & H, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 174 and Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Patna, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 350 was found inapplicable in this case, as those judgments addressed the legality of prescribing minimum interview marks where the rules were silent or ambiguous. However, in the present case, the unamended MJS Rules explicitly provided the method of final selection. Therefore, the petitioner's evaluation should have been conducted under the unamended rules, and the executive resolution imposing a viva voce cut-off was invalid as it substituted rather than supplemented the statutory rules. Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636

Substantive legitimate expectation and fairness in recruitment process - Whether the High Court's decision violated the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioner. Held, for a public authority to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation, it must objectively demonstrate an overriding public interest. The petitioner claimed a legitimate expectation under the unamended MJS Rules, 2005, that the merit list would be based on the aggregate marks of the written examination and viva voce. However, a minimum 40% cut-off for the viva voce was introduced after the recruitment process had begun, without prior notice to the candidates. Such a post-hoc imposition violated the petitioner's substantive legitimate expectation, rendering the process arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner's participation in the recruitment process did not preclude him from challenging the process's illegality, reaffirming the principle that the doctrine of estoppel cannot override the law. In conclusion, the Court ordered that the petitioner, having secured over 50% in aggregate marks, be declared successful in the recruitment test. The petitioner was granted appointment with notional seniority from 2015 for superannuation purposes but without retrospective monetary benefits. The directions were to be implemented within four weeks. Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636

Article 14, 16, and 21 - Reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, - Fixation of cut-off marks - Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservations - The appellants challenged the recruitment process of 120 posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate initiated by the Rajasthan High Court, contending that the respondents failed to publish cut-off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disabilities in the preliminary examination results. The appellants claimed this omission was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights and the applicable state rules regarding reservation for persons with disabilities. Held, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is treated as an "overall horizontal reservation" and not compartmentalized into specific vertical categories such as SC, ST, or OBC. Candidates with disabilities were required to meet the cut-off marks for the vertical category they applied under. The Court found no statutory mandate requiring separate cut-off marks for the persons with benchmark disabilities in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, or the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018. The Court reaffirmed that those who participate in a selection process cannot challenge its methodology post-facto upon failing to succeed. Hence, the action of the respondents was not discriminatory or violative of the appellants' fundamental rights. Appeals dismissed. Rekha Sharma v. High Court of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : AIR 2024 SC 4241

Seventh National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) recommendations - Implementation of. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 536

Vacancy arising due to elevation of judge not anticipated vacancy. Nitin Mittal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 432

Appointing serving judicial officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Services as legal advisors of the DDA completely violates the principle of independence of judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. The position of the Judicial Officers working as the Law Secretaries is completely different. (Para 12) Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Article 14 & 16 and Gujarat Rules, 2005; Rule 8 – Constitutionality of the Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test, as a part of the selection criteria, is challenged – Held, the Prescription of minimum qualifying marks for interview is permissible and this is not in violation of All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others which accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission. Further held, the minimum cut-off of 20% for the Bihar recruitment and 40% for the Gujarat recruitment cannot be considered to provide a high threshold if one keeps in mind that the recruitment is for selection of judicial officers. The object of viva voce set out in Rule 8(5) of Gujarat Rules, 2005 has a reasonable and direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. the appointment of well-rounded judicial officers. For recruitment of judicial officers, ideally the effort should be to not only test the candidate's intellect but also their personality. The prescription of minimum cut off is also not perceived to be of such a nature that it reeks of irrationality, or was capricious and/or without any adequate determining principle. It does not appear to be disproportionate so as to adversely affect “meritorious” candidates and certainly not manifestly arbitrary, or irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The concerned recruitment Rules cannot be said to be unconstitutional. The impugned selection process in the State of Bihar and Gujarat are found to be legally valid and are upheld. (Para 66, 67 & 102) Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Judicature at Patna, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2024 SC 2596 : (2024) 7 SCC 262

Article 234 - Gujarat Rules, 2005; Rule 8 – Consultation with public service commission required under Article 234 of the Constitution for amending the rules –The prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce under Rule 8(3) of Gujarat Rules, 2005 as amended in 2011 was only in consultation with the High Court of Gujarat but not with the Gujarat Public Service Commission. Held, the Governor is under no compulsion to consult the Public Service Commission in case the Commission does not wish to be consulted. The concerned Gujarat Rules cannot, therefore, be declared to be void particularly when the Rules were framed with due consultation with the High Court. (Para 93, 97 & 102) Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Judicature at Patna, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2024 SC 2596 : (2024) 7 SCC 262

Pensionary payments to Judges constitute a vital element in the independence of the judiciary. As a consequence of long years of judicial office, Judges on demitting office do not necessarily have the options which are open to members from other services. The reason why the State assumes the obligation to pay pension to Judges is to ensure that the protection of the benefits which are available after retirement would ensure their ability to discharge their duties without “fear or favour” during the years of judgeship. The purpose of creating dignified conditions of existence for Judges both during their tenure as Judges and thereafter has, therefore, a vital element of public interest. Courts and the Judges are vital components of the rule of law. Independence of the judiciary is hence a vital doctrine which is recognized in the constitutional scheme. The payment of salaries and dignified pensions serves precisely that purpose. Hence, any interpretation which is placed on the provisions of the Act must comport with the object and purpose underlying the enactment of the provision. (Para 25) Union of India v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 277

There cannot be any discrimination between the retired High Court judges, depending on their source of elevation (whether from the bar or the District Judiciary), while computing their pensionary benefits. Union of India v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Judicial Impropriety - Judgment released after retirement - A judge retaining the case file after demitting office is a gross impropriety - Remitted the appeal to the High Court for fresh consideration. State through CBI v. Naresh Prasad Agarwal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 133 : (2024) 3 SCC 515

Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (Jharkhand); Rule 14, 18 and 21, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017 – “No change in the rule midway” - The High Court administration is seeking to deviate from the Rules guiding the selection process itself - Rule 14, empowers the High Court administration in specific cases to reassess the suitability and eligibility of a candidate and not to take a blanket decision for making departure from the selection criteria specified in the 2001 Rules. Precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of the recruitment rules without there being a finding on such candidate's unsuitability, such an action would fail the Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary. If the High Court is permitted to alter the selection criteria after the performance of individual candidates is assessed, that would constitute alteration of the laid down Rules. The reasoning behind the Full Court Resolution of (securing 50 per cent marks in aggregate) is that better candidates ought to be found, is different from a candidate excluded from the appointment process being found to be unsuitable. This deviation from Statutory Rules is impermissible. (Para 20 & 24) Sushil Kumar Pandey v. High Court of Jharkhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 109

Judges are not comparable with the administrative executive. They discharge sovereign state functions and just like the Council of Ministers or the political executive and their service is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the political executive, judges are distinct from judicial staff, and are thus comparable with the political executive and legislature. It would be wholly inappropriate to equate judicial service with the service of other officers of the State. The functions, duties, restrictions and restraints operating during and after service are entirely distinct for members of the judicial service. Consequently, the plea of equivalence has been consistently rejected in the judgments of this Court. We affirmatively do so again. (Para 18) All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 25 : AIR 2024 SC 1110

Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the functions of the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to sustain the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics and in terms of the responsibilities which are cast upon the officers of the District Judiciary to render objective dispensation of justice to citizens. The State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, are commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working conditions for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement emoluments made available to former members of the judicial service. Members of the district judiciary are the first point of engagement for citizens who are confronted with the need for dispute resolution. The conditions in which judicial officers across the country are required to work are arduous. The work of a judicial officer is not confined merely to the working hours rendered in the course of judicial duties in the court. Every judicial officer is required to work both before and after the court working hours. The judicial work of each day requires preparation before cases are called out. A judicial officer continues to work on cases which may have been dealt with in court, in terms of preparing the judgment and attending to other administrative aspects of the judicial record. That apart, members of the district judiciary have wide ranging administrative functions which take place beyond working hours, especially on week-ends including the discharge of numerous duties in relation to prison establishments, juvenile justice institutions, legal service camps and in general, work associated with the Legal Services Act 1987. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 25 : AIR 2024 SC 1110

The High Courts shall constitute a committee named 'Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary' to oversee the implementation. The composition of the committee shall be: (i) Two Judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of which one should be a Judge who has previously served as a member of the district judiciary; (ii) The Law Secretary/Legal Remembrancer; (iii) The Registrar General of the High Court who shall serve as an ex officio Secretary of the Committee; and (iv) A retired judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge to be nominated by the Chief Justice who shall act as a nodal officer for the day to day redressal of grievances. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 25 : AIR 2024 SC 1110

The state governments pay the arrears to judges in terms of enhanced pay scales as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 25 : AIR 2024 SC 1110

The work of a Judge cannot be assessed solely in terms of their duties during court working hours. The State is under an affirmative obligation to ensure dignified conditions of work for its judicial officers and it cannot raise the defense of an increase in financial burden or expenditure. Judicial officers spend the largest part of their working life in service of the institution. The nature of the office often renders the incumbent incapacitated in availing of opportunities for legal work which may otherwise be available to a member of the Bar. That furnishes an additional reason why post-retirement, it is necessary for the State to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in conditions of human dignity. It needs to be emphasized that providing for judges, both during their tenure and upon retirement, is correlated with the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence, which is necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of common citizens in the rule of law, can be ensured and enhanced only so long as judges are able to lead their life with a sense of financial dignity. The conditions of service while a judge is in service must ensure a dignified existence. The post-retirement conditions of service have a crucial bearing on the dignity and independence of the office of a judge and how it is perceived by the society. If the service of the judiciary is to be a viable career option so as to attract talent, conditions of service, both for working and retired officers, must offer security and dignity. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 25 : AIR 2024 SC 1110

Article 229 - Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts - Article 229 (2) pertains only to the service conditions of 'officers and servants' of the High Courts and does not include Judges of the High Court (both sitting and retired judges). The Chief Justice does not have the power, under Article 229, to make rules pertaining to the post-retiral benefits payable to former Chief Justices and judges of the High Court. Therefore, the Rules proposed by the Chief Justice, in the present case, do not fall within the competence of the Chief Justice under Article 229. (Para 25) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Judges, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : (2024) 3 SCC 1

Article 229 (2) - The High Court did not have the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for former Judges of the High Court. The Chief Justice did not have the competence to frame the rules under Article 229 of the Constitution. Further, the High Court, acting on the judicial side, does not have the power to direct the Government to frame rules proposed by it on the administrative side. (Para 24 – 30) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Judges, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : (2024) 3 SCC 1

Pay Scale

The appellant, a retired IAS officer appointed as the State Vigilance Commissioner, challenged the pay scale offered to him upon his appointment, contending it was lower than that accorded to his predecessors who were granted pay parity with the Chief Secretary. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was initially allowed by a Single Judge. However, this decision was reversed on appeal by the Division Bench, which upheld the original terms of the appellant's pay. Whether the appellant, who accepted the terms of his appointment unreservedly, is entitled to a pay scale equivalent to that of the Chief Secretary. Held, the appellant, having voluntarily accepted the terms of his appointment, could not later claim a higher pay scale. The Court also rejected the invocation of the "equal pay for equal work" principle, noting it was inapplicable as the post of State Vigilance Commissioner was unique with no comparable positions during the appellant's tenure. Appeal dismissed. Metongmeren Ao v. State of Nagaland, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 657

Any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee's pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. Any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences. (Para 21 & 26) Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 564 : AIR 2024 SC 3950

Whenever a Scheme/Policy is brought into force, ceteris paribus, the Court could not and would not import something which is not present therein and which may not be proper to be interfered with, especially when it relates to financial matters where primacy is required to be granted to the pay-master as to what scale was to be granted to the category of staff concerned. By its very nature, such exercise would fall under the realm of policy-formulation. (Para 20) Rajasthan Agricultural University v. Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 555 : AIR 2024 SC 3941

Pension

Pensionary benefits; classification as a permanent employee - Whether the appellant was entitled to pensionary benefits despite alleged irregularities in his appointment. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment of the Single Judge that upheld the Labour Court's decision granting permanent employee status to the appellant. The appellant was appointed as a mason in 1974 and worked until his retirement on March 31, 2012. The Labour Court declared him a permanent employee and entitled him to arrears from June 4, 1996. Subsequent appeals by the respondents were dismissed at multiple levels, including the Supreme Court. The Single Judge of the High Court granted pensionary benefits, but this was reversed by the Division Bench, denying such relief. Held, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the judgment of the Single Judge and granting pensionary benefits to the appellant's heirs/legal representatives. The Labour Court's order granting permanent employee status attained finality, and respondents failed to overturn it at any appellate stage. The Division Bench erred in questioning the validity of the appellant's service induction and classification when these issues were conclusively settled earlier. The State's failure to regularize the appellant's employment despite the Labour Court's directive constituted a violation, and the appellant could not be deprived of his pensionary entitlements due to the respondents' inaction. The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, and the Single Judge's judgment was restored. Pensionary benefits and family pension, with 6% interest from the date of retirement, were ordered to be disbursed to the legal heirs within three months. Madanlal Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1053

Pension - Validity of letters dated 14 March 2016 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) affecting pensionary benefits for: 40 pensioners employed after 15 July 1974, and 229 retirees post-28 June 1994, including voluntary retirees. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice due to withdrawal of pensionary benefits without prior notice or opportunity of being heard. Held, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), refusing to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the letters in question were issued without adherence to principles of natural justice. However, the significant passage of time and the limited impact on 269 retired employees influenced the decision not to intervene. The dismissal is confined to the facts of these specific cases and does not constitute adjudication on other legal questions raised by the petitioners. Special Leave Petitions dismissed. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pensioners Social and Welfare Association, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1046

Pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules. (Para 35) U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 (Gujarat); Rule 25 - Qualifying service of a government employee - Qualifying service for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits / pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules would include prior services rendered by such person under inter alia the Central Government provided that (i) the employment of such person under the Central Government encompassed an underlying pension scheme; and (ii) such person came to be absorbed by the State Government. The Appellant has most certainly, 'implicitly' been absorbed by the State Government i.e., the Appellants' participation in the selection process was prefaced by an NOC from the Central Government; and subsequently was followed by the tender of a technical resignation to the Central Government upon securing employment with the State Government. The interpretation sought to limit the benefit of Rule 25(ix) only to such person(s) who may have 'explicitly' been absorbed by the State Government is narrow and restrictive. (Para 14 & 18) Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Objective - Pension is earned by a government servant in lieu of tireless service rendered by him / her during the course of their employment; and often is an important consideration for person(s) seeking government employment. The raison d'etre qua the grant of pension by the State Government would inextricably be linked to a concentrated effort by the State Government to enable its former employee(s) to tide over the vagaries and vicissitudes associated with old age vide a pension scheme. (Para 10) Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Delegated Beneficial legislation - Pension scheme(s) floated by the State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation; and ought to be interpreted widely subject to such interpretation not running contrary to the express provisions of the Pension Rules. (Para 17) Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 108

The state government is entitled to do the recovery of entitlements received by the officer as the entitlement so received were granted pursuant to the order dated 4th August 2011 issued by the Principal Secretary that was not consistent with the orders issued by the Government orders of the Finance Department. Dr. Balbir Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2024 SC 701

Performance Appraisal Report

PAR Rules; Rule 5(1) – Mandatory nature of timelines – Outcome of contravention of timelines prescribed under the schedule in view of Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules – The previous performance appraisal report(s) of Respondent were admittedly beyond the timelines prescribed under the Schedule, however within the period prescribed under Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules. The High Court observed that the timelines prescribed under the Schedule were not water-tight and in fact, were flexible. Admittedly, the Accepting Authority has met the timelines prescribed under Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules and accordingly, there is no reason to expunge the remarks and overall grades awarded to Respondent by the Accepting Authority on the PAR on account of a contravention of the timelines prescribed under the Schedule. (Para 19, 20 & 21) State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : AIR 2024 SC 1397

Police

The appellant challenged a censure penalty imposed for gross negligence and indifference in the performance of his duties, asserting that he had not been afforded an opportunity to show cause prior to the imposition of the penalty, thus breaching the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and the principles of natural justice. The Court found that a notice had been issued by the Circle Officer seeking the appellant's explanation regarding pending investigations, and his response was deemed unsatisfactory by the senior police officials. The censure, as a minor penalty under Rule 4, was properly imposed by the Superintendent of Police, who acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the Rules. The High Court had correctly dismissed the writ petition and appeal of the appellant, upholding the validity of the censure entry in his service record. Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 758

Pertinently, there is no discernible conflict or contradiction between the definitions of 'Reporting Authority' and 'Reviewing Authority' in the 1970 Rules, post 1987, and in the 2007 Rules. The clear import of these definitions is that such authorities must be from within the same service or department. Invocation of the doctrine of harmonious construction vis-à-vis these definitions, therefore, does not arise. Given the clear intent of the 1970 Rules/2007 Rules that the reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities should be from within the same service or department, the question is whether breach of such requirement can be permitted in the State of Assam under Rule 63(iii) of the Manual. State of Assam v. Binod Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 46 : AIR 2024 SC 760 : (2024) 3 SCC 611

Promotion

Promotion Criteria – Deputation Service – Direct Recruitment - The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Clause 6 of Circular dated 22.05.2017, which allowed the deputation period to be treated as regular service for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) in the appellant organization. Held, deputation service prior to repatriation cannot be treated as continuous service under Clause 6 if the employee was repatriated to their parent department and later joined the organization through direct recruitment. Respondent No. 1, having been repatriated in 2014 and rejoining in 2015 as a direct recruit, was a fresh entrant. His service for promotion purposes could only be reckoned from 26.08.2015, the date of his direct recruitment. The Circular was a one-time measure aimed at addressing disparities between deputationists and regular employees but did not confer a right to individuals with gaps in service unconnected to the organization. The respondent's claim for promotion under Clause 6 was rejected, as he had not completed the required four years of service as Manager (Technical) on the relevant date. The respondent was ineligible for promotion under the Circular, and the decisions of the CAT and High Court were set aside. The respondent shall be considered for future promotions based on his service starting from 26.08.2015. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. National Highways Authority of India v. G. Athipathi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Retrospective Promotion - Right to Consideration vs. Promotion - Administrative Delays - Whether a government employee, recommended for promotion before retirement but unable to assume the post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits for the promotional post post-retirement - Applicability of Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules in denying retrospective financial benefits without assuming the duties of the higher post. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Government of West Bengal, holding that Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules stipulates that an employee must assume the duties and responsibilities of a higher post to be eligible for the corresponding financial benefits. As respondent No. 1 retired before assuming such duties, he could not be granted financial benefits retrospectively. While the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the right to promotion itself is not absolute. Promotion becomes effective only upon the assumption of duties. Although the delay in processing the promotion was caused by the appellants' inaction, it does not override the statutory bar on retrospective promotions or the requirement of assuming the post's duties. Promotion becomes effective from the date an employee assumes charge of the higher post, not from the vacancy date or recommendation date. Retrospective promotions are not permissible unless explicitly enabled by statutory provisions. The impugned judgments of the High Court and the Administrative Tribunal were set aside. Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to notional financial benefits post-retirement. Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 927

Mere grant of prosecution sanction against a Central Government employee is not a reason to put the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in a sealed cover. Union of India v. Doly Loyi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim the benefits of promotion when they were not even born in the cadre. Mhabemo Ovung v. M. Moanungba, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : AIR 2024 SC 4637

Retrospective Promotion - A promotion shall be effective from the date on which it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. (Para 18) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 506 : AIR 2024 SC 4609

Reduction of grade by accepting authority challenged on grounds of prejudice – Contention of prejudice caused cannot be accepted on account of the fact that Respondent was awarded an overall grade '9' which undisputedly forms a part of the 'outstanding' grade i.e., the highest category awarded to an IAS officer. There can be no qualm that the said overall grade is more than sufficient for the purposes of empanelment / promotion vis-à-vis Respondent. (Para 24) State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : AIR 2024 SC 1397

Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (Rajasthan); Rule 24(4) which provides that no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002 is non-discriminatory and does not violate the Constitution. Ramji Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Public Service

Selection Process - Whether the error committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a material error or a trivial error and was the State justified in declaring the candidate as having failed on account of the same? Held, the candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which did not play any part in the selection process. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of this molehill. (Para 19) Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : AIR 2024 SC 248

Qualification

Employees governed by different rules and having different duties can't claim parity merely based on the same qualification. Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Rajinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : AIR 2024 SC 4334

Prospective Application of Judgment - B.Ed. Qualification for Primary School Teachers - Review Petition - Equitable Retention of Employment - Bridge Course Requirement - The Judgment delivered on 11th August, 2023, concerning the eligibility criteria for B.Ed. candidates to be appointed as primary school teachers, shall have prospective operation. Candidates appointed prior to this date, based on B.Ed. qualification without any disqualification imposed by a court of law or without a stipulation that their appointment was subject to the final outcome of a case, shall retain their employment. However, such candidates must undergo a bridge course within a year from the date of the judgment to validate their appointments. The National Council for Teacher Education, under the supervision of the Ministry of Education, is directed to devise this course, applicable nationwide. Failure to complete the course within the specified timeframe will invalidate the appointment. The court further extends these directions to cover all similar cases pending in different judicial fora across states and union territories. Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 297 : AIR 2023 SC 3895

Recruitment

Eligibility Criteria - Precedent - Recruitment Procedures - Binding Nature of Rules - Right to Appointment - The recruitment process begins with the issuance of an advertisement inviting applications and concludes with the filling of vacancies. Eligibility criteria specified at the start of the recruitment process cannot be altered midway unless permitted by the applicable rules or the advertisement itself, provided such changes comply with Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of non-arbitrariness. The ruling in K. Manjusree, (2008) 3 SCC 512 establishes valid law and is distinct from Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 as the former pertains to the right to be included in the Select List, while the latter addresses the right to appointment from the Select List. Recruitment bodies may adopt procedures consistent with the rules to conclude the process, provided such procedures are transparent, non-discriminatory, and rationally connected to the objective. Statutory rules governing recruitment are binding. In the absence of such rules or if they are silent, administrative instructions may be applied to fill procedural gaps. Inclusion in the Select List does not guarantee an indefeasible right to appointment. While the State or its instrumentalities may choose not to fill vacancies for bona fide reasons, they cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to eligible candidates within the Select List if vacancies exist. Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864

Recruitment and Appointment – Equal Treatment of Similarly Situated Candidates – Judgment in Rem and Judgment in Personam – The main issue was the legality of the OBC reservation, which was applied retroactively through a notification issued after the recruitment process had commenced. The petitioners argued that this change infringed upon their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the original recruitment notice did not include any reference to OBC reservations. The High Court set aside the selection made on 242 seats of OBC finding the retroactive application of the OBC reservation as illegal because proper opportunity was not served to all the candidates belonging to the OBC category to apply for the said posts. Held, changing the rules of the selection process mid-way would undermine the fairness of the selection process as it would deny equality of opportunity to other candidates eligible to be recruited in the OBC category. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision which annulled the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category due to procedural flaws. The State should draw up a fresh selection list following the High Court's judgment limiting appointments to the originally stated 1,423 vacancies. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of equitable treatment for all similarly situated candidates following a recruitment process initiated in 2006. The Court observed that judgments declaring law, such as the High Court's decision on 06.10.2015, should be treated as judgments in rem, benefiting all candidates, irrespective of their involvement in litigation. The revised select list must be prepared strictly based on merit, with appointments confined to the originally notified 1,423 vacancies. The Court held that excluding candidates who did not litigate would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the prolonged recruitment process disadvantaged many. However, those appointed in 2011 and not listed in the revised merit list may face job displacement, with the government retaining discretion over their continued service. No arrears of salary were granted, but notional appointments from 09.12.2011 were recognized for superannuation benefits. The appeals filed by the State of Manipur were dismissed, and the recruitment process was ordered to conclude within specified timelines. Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. State of Manipur, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 792

Recruitment Process - Final Select List - Impermissibility of Rule Change Post-Selection - despite the preparation of the Final Select List which signals the conclusion of the appointment process, the State Government seeks to scrap the entire process and undertake a fresh appointment process under the New Rules - this amounts to effectively changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their legitimate right of consideration under the previous Rules. (Para 26) Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 781

When recruitment for public posts is being done, authorities shall preserve answer scripts of candidates until the process is complete, to obviate any allegations of wrong-doing. Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. State of Manipur, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 (Madhya Pradesh); Rule 7A – Recruitment rule challenged – Denial of Appointment in question – The State Government exercising powers conferred upon it by Section 95(1) r.w. Section 70(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 promulgated recruitment rules – In spite of having passed the selection exam, the State Government took the shield of an amended rule i.e. Rule 7-A, issued on 29th July, 2009 for denying relief to the appellant herein, even when the said rule had no retrospective application. Further, in spite of the High Court having struck down the said rule and passing repeated orders in favour of the appellant, another notification dated 21st March, 2018 was issued making the amended rule effective from 1st January, 2008 i.e. prior to the date of recruitment. Hence, this was clearly a mala fide action in an attempt to circumvent the orders passed by the High Court by hook or by crook so as to prevent the appellant and her peers of their lawful claim to appointment which stood crystalized long back. Held, the appointment order will be effective from the date on which the first appointment order pursuant to the selection process dated 31st August, 2008 came to be issued. (Para 8 & 11) Smita Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 424 : AIR 2024 SC 2292

Article 136 – Interference not warranted – The Technical Assistants are not claiming against the 75% posts available for direct recruits. Their claim is only towards 25% posts which are required to be filled in from Junior Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants who have put five year service and have acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification. Held, the Technical Assistants are not encroaching upon the quota apportioned for directly recruited Assistant Engineers. The continuation of the appellants as Assistant Engineers would not amount to encroaching upon the 75% posts apportioned for the members of the appellants' association. Hence, any interference at this stage is likely to undo the settled position which has been prevalent almost for a period of last 18 years. (Para 21, 25 & 26) Association of Engineers v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : AIR 2024 SC 2061

Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure for Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020 - No written test would be either feasible or practicable for the appointment of the President of the SCDRC for which a former Judge of the High Court is eligible for appointment. Hence, insofar as appointments to the post of President of the SCDRC are concerned, we direct that the requirement of holding a written examination and viva voce in the terms as envisaged shall stand relaxed for the present. At the same time, it is clarified that the appointments to the office of President of the SCDRC shall be made in consultation with and subject to the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. (Para 4) Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Power of court to interfere in recruitment process – Courts should be cautious and slow in dealing with recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a deprived candidate, as it will have a cascading effect on the entire recruitment process. The courts are duty bound to take into consideration the relevant orders, rules and enactments before finally deciding the case. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. Recruitment made in favour of respondent 2 is restored. (Para 14) Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board v. Saluvadi Sumalatha, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2024 SC 1434

Process of recruitment – Ratio of seats – 30% of the posts meant for both locals and non-locals have to be mandatorily filled up first before going for the remaining 70%. Government notification stated that all Departments are directed to maintain 70% of reservation in direct Recruitment to Locals maintaining the 30:70 ratio. The High Court fell into an error in not only adopting a wrong ratio but also fixing 70% first. (Para 13) Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board v. Saluvadi Sumalatha, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2024 SC 1434

Order of cancellation of selection – On grounds of non-disclosure of any criminal antecedent in recruitment – Non-disclosure, could not be deemed fatal. The order of cancellation is neither fair nor reasonable. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario. (Para 30) Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : (2024) 5 SCC 264

Character verification procedure challenged – The order of cancellation does not follow the mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the Form of verification of character. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment, the Appointing Authority has mechanically held his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with incorrect facts. (Para 29) Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : (2024) 5 SCC 264

Determination of nature of relief – Essentials to be looked into by the court while adjudging suitability of the candidate for the office – The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgement of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application / verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration and the contents of the cancellation / termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered. (Para 28) Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : (2024) 5 SCC 264

Reserved Female Category - Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) - The Appellant i.e., a candidate who was scrupulously following the terms and conditions of the Impugned Advertisement was constrained to apply under the 'Open General Category' only on account of certain logistical limitations preventing her from obtaining a valid NCL Certificate. Held, the Appellant cannot be unfairly deprived of the benefit of female reservation merely on account of the Appellant's honesty and restraint which did not allow her to mark 'yes' against a column inquiring about a prospective candidates' status as a person belonging to the NCL, in the absence of the underlying supporting document. (Para 16 & 17) Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Regularization

Similarly placed employees discriminated - Regularization of worker who served for 30 years. Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 612

It is true that an employee engaged on daily wages has no legally vested right to seek regularisation of his services. However, if the competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy. Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances. (Para 5) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyam Kumar Yadav, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Regularization of employment – Change in nature of employment through continuous service – Held, the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. Continuous service in capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitutes a substantive departure from the temporary nature of the initial engagement. Reliance on procedural formalities cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Further, promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews. Hence, the service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The appellants are entitled to be considered for regularization in their respective posts. (Para 5 & 6) Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 330

Article 136 – Wrongful denial of employment and regularization – Distinction between the two sets of workers – Artificial distinction asserted by appellant between two set of workers is unjustified. The appellant has failed to establish any distinction between the 19 workers who were regularized and the 13 workers who were left out. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the nature of the duties performed by the 13 workmen are perennial in nature and they hold the same status as the 19 regularized employees but were wrongly not made part of the settlement. There is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant. (Para 20, 21 & 22) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Retirement

Retirement - Grant-in-Aid Pension Scheme - Liability for payment of retiral benefits to an employee dismissed from a Grant-in-Aid private college and subsequently reinstated. The appellant, a private college under the Grant-in-Aid scheme of the Government of Gujarat, dismissed respondent no.2, a lecturer, in 1994 for misconduct. After prolonged litigation, the High Court reinstated the respondent in 2010 but directed that only 75% back wages be paid. Upon further appeals, the High Court ruled in 2022 that the respondent's services should be treated as continuous for retiral benefits. In a 2023 review, the High Court modified its earlier direction, placing full liability for retiral benefits on the appellant college. Held, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order holding the appellant college liable for retiral benefits, ruling that the liability rests with the State Government under the applicable Grant-in-Aid Pension Scheme. The Grant-in-Aid Pension Scheme explicitly assigns responsibility for pension and retiral benefits to the State Government. The appellant's conduct in contesting the dismissal was not deemed frivolous or malicious, and no jurisdictional overreach was found in its actions. The appellate authority's findings that the charges against respondent no.2 were trivial do not negate the State's obligation under the Scheme. Appeal allowed. The High Court's 2023 order was modified to affirm that the State Government (respondent no.1) is liable for the retiral dues of respondent no.2. Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Entitlement of post-retiral benefits and terminal dues – The appellant(s) have continued to work initially as seasonal/daily wage employees but thereafter regularized and have continued to work till their superannuation. Held, considering the fact that the appellant(s) have worked for a long period (over 30 years), it would be unreasonable and unfair to deny them post retiral benefits or terminal dues as may be admissible to the regular government employees. Hence, the appellant(s) would be entitled to all consequential benefits. (Para 3, 5 & 9) Anand Prakash Mani Tripathi v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Resignation

Resignation is not final until its acceptance is communicated to the employee. S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 700 : AIR 2024 SC 4308

Salary

Stoppage of Salary - While the State sanctioned two vacancies, the school went ahead and recruited three. The State has no proof of commission of any malpractice by the teachers. The State approved their appointments, and the approval order till date has not been cancelled. The appointments have not been terminated. No action has been taken against the school and the school continues to receive the aid. Held, the teachers were not at fault and the State could not have abruptly stopped their salaries. (Para 22 & 34) Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 9 : AIR 2024 SC 260

Seniority

Changes to government order cannot be applied retrospectively to alter established seniority rankings. V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 762

Selection

Limiting candidates for interview necessary to enhance efficiency and transparency of the selection process. Sukhmander Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Guidelines sanctioning award of excess bonus marks on a differential basis is challenged to be discriminatory and ultra vires the Rules – Bonus marks fixed for applicants with project experience and other applicants are different – Guidelines for the selection were issued before the advertisement for the post – Held, the experience gathered from project work stood on a higher pedestal because it was in tune with the nature of the work of the position of appointment – Hence, there is no illegality in the prescription of additional marks for those applicants who had experience of working in projects, while recruiting Prabhodhaks. (Para 29 & 40) Mahesh Chand Bareth v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 442

It is not open for an employer to change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during the course of the ongoing selection process. Any such action would be hit by the vice of arbitrariness as it would tantamount to denial of an opportunity to those candidates who are eligible in terms of the advertisement but would stand disqualified on the basis of a change in the eligibility criteria after the same is announced by the employer. (Para 8) Anil Kishore Pandit v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Temporary Employees

In this case, the Court examined whether employees in the Public Works Department, categorized under the Converted Temporary Establishment (CTE) as per the Kalelkar Award, are entitled to public holidays, including holidays on the second and fourth Saturdays of each month. The Court observed that the Kalelkar Award clearly entitles non-daily-wage employees, including CTE employees, to the government-sanctioned public holidays. Additionally, they are eligible for overtime allowances as stipulated. The appellants (employers) argued that a government circular from May 27, 1996, restricted these benefits. However, the Court found this argument baseless, noting that the circular did not apply to employees under the CTE status granted by the Kalelkar Award. The Court affirmed the Industrial Court's and High Court's rulings, which had granted the respondent-employees these benefits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the employer's appeal, directing compliance with the Industrial Court's order within eight weeks. Public Works Department v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 725 : AIR 2024 SC 4618

'Temporary' employees working for decades like regular government employees can't be denied equal benefits. Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : AIR 2024 SC 4321

Respondent, a part-time labourer, reinstated by Labour Court in 2001. State repeatedly litigated against implementation of the Labour Court award, harassing respondent for 22 years. Frivolous Special Leave Petition dismissed; respondent awarded costs of Rs.10,00,000. State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Bijawat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Transfer

Whether employees who challenge transfer orders but fail to join their transferred posts are entitled to salary for the period of unauthorized absence. Whether the employer is obligated to regularize the period of absence once transfer orders are set aside. Held, the Court reiterated that transfer is an exigency of service, and employees cannot refuse to join their transferred post while litigating the transfer order. Absence without sanctioned leave leads to forfeiture of salary unless interim orders protect the employee. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University v. R. Agila, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 801

Validity of transfer order – Absence of malafide intention – Even if transfer order was made on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. It is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. (Para 9.3) Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 231

Termination

Validity of termination orders issued under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution - Whether the appellants were justified in keeping the respondents' applications for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) pending for an unreasonable period. Entitlement of the respondents to reinstatement and consequential benefits. The respondents, who were doctors in the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, applied for VRS in 2006–2008. The applications remained undecided, and the respondents resorted to prolonged absenteeism. The State terminated their services on May 3, 2010, citing impracticability of holding disciplinary proceedings due to widespread absenteeism among doctors. The High Court quashed the termination orders, reinstated the respondents, and directed consequential benefits. The Supreme Court partially set aside the High Court's orders and substituted the termination orders with voluntary retirement orders effective May 3, 2010. The respondents were denied arrears of salary and monetary benefits, including pension, for the period prior to the judgment. The prolonged pendency of VRS applications by the State was unjustified. The respondents' absenteeism was not condonable, and reinstatement was inappropriate. The interests of justice required that the respondents be granted VRS retrospectively from May 3, 2010, but without monetary benefits for the interim period. Termination orders dated May 3, 2010, are set aside. Respondents deemed voluntarily retired from May 3, 2010. No arrears of salary or pension payable before the date of this judgment. Pension, if payable, to be fixed from May 3, 2010, and disbursed prospectively. The judgment balances the competing interests of the State in maintaining discipline and the respondents' right to fair treatment, while emphasizing timely decision-making in public administration. State of U.P. v. Sandeep Agarwal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

Termination Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Police verification report - The appellant's termination was challenged on the grounds that it violated principles of natural justice. The government deemed the appellant "unsuitable" for employment without specifying reasons in the show cause notice or termination order. Additionally, the appellant was not furnished with the police verification report or any other relevant documents, depriving him of the opportunity to present a meaningful defense. This lack of transparency contravenes the principle that administrative or quasi-judicial orders must state reasons to ensure fairness, accountability, and the opportunity for judicial review. Furthermore, the appellant was denied a personal hearing, a critical procedural safeguard. The Supreme Court held that the termination order violated principles of natural justice, as it lacked cogent reasons, adequate disclosure of materials, and an opportunity for personal hearing. The Court restored the Tribunal's order, setting aside the termination, and rejected the High Court's contrary finding that the procedural actions adhered to natural justice. Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 957

Termination Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Police verification report - The appellant, who joined as an Ophthalmic Assistant on 06.03.1985, was terminated from service based on a police verification report filed after 25 years, just two months before his retirement. The delay in submission of the verification report, for which the respondent authorities admitted fault without valid justification, deprived the appellant of pensionary benefits despite 26 years of unblemished service. The Court held the termination arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice principles, rendering it unsustainable. It further directed all State police authorities to complete verification reports regarding candidates' antecedents, nationality, and document authenticity within a stipulated time, not exceeding six months from the date of appointment. Consequently, the appellant's service benefits were ordered to be paid within three months from the receipt of the judgment copy. Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 957

Abandonment of Service - Termination - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), setting aside the High Court's decision to reinstate the respondent who had been terminated on grounds of abandonment of service. Whether the termination of the respondent for abandonment of service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations, 1960, was valid. Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent without considering his suppression of material facts. The respondent, employed as an Assistant Administrative Officer by the LIC, was absent from duty without informing his employer since September 25, 1995. Multiple notices issued to the respondent went unanswered, and postal remarks indicated he had abandoned his job. The respondent was terminated on June 25, 1996, under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations, treating his prolonged absence as abandonment of service. The respondent later secured employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) on April 14, 1997, a fact not disclosed in his writ petition challenging the termination. Held, the LIC acted within its authority under Regulation 39(4)(iii) to terminate the respondent, as he had failed to respond to notices and had not informed the employer of his whereabouts. The respondent's suppression of his subsequent employment with the FCI disentitled him to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court erred in reinstating the respondent without considering the full factual matrix, including his abandonment of service and subsequent conduct. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order granting relief to the respondent was quashed. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Om Parkash, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 899

Employment under the rehabilitation scheme - Termination - Whether the appellant, as the son-in-law of a land-loser whose land was acquired was entitled to employment under the rehabilitation scheme and whether the termination of his services was legally justified. The appellant was appointed as a Helper in the respondent Corporation under a rehabilitation scheme based on a certificate asserting his status as the son-in-law of a land-loser. Matrimonial disputes arose, leading to the appellant's divorce from the land-loser's daughter. Allegations of fraud regarding the appellant's marital status led to his termination. The Labour Court held the termination illegal, ordering reinstatement with back wages. The Writ Court overturned the Labour Court's award, finding misrepresentation by the appellant. Held, the factual findings of the Labour Court, based on substantial evidence, should not have been disturbed without compelling reasons. The Writ Court erred in overlooking crucial evidence, including the divorce proceedings and documents confirming the appellant's marriage. The appeal was allowed. Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v. Nuclear Power Corporation, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Reinstatement of Candidates in Select List with Certificate of 80 Hours Course on Computer Concepts (CCC Certification) – Whether the termination of candidates from the select list dated 14th July 2015, who had produced CCC certificates at the time of their interviews, was legally sustainable. Held, the termination of candidates who produced CCC certificates on the date of the interview was held to be improper. Such candidates were entitled to reinstatement. Candidates who obtained CCC certification after the interview date were not entitled to relief, as this would contravene the requirements of the advertisement and the 1995 Regulations. Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 876

Once the termination order is set aside and judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition challenging the said termination order has also been set aside, the natural consequence is that the employee should be taken back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per the directions. Once the termination order is set aside then the employee is deemed to be in service. Anantdeep Singhv v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 683

Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Act, 1977 (Maharashtra); Section 7 and Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Rules, 1981 (Maharashtra); Rule 40 – Termination of service challenged – On grounds of non-compliance of MEPS Act and Rules while accepting the resignation – Power of school committee to accept resignation – Held, the appellant himself had addressed his resignation letter to the school committee, which placed it before the management, upon which the management committee passed a resolution accepting the resignation. Further held, the School Committee consists of four representatives of the management, making it evident that management was involved in the process of considering and accepting the resignation letter. Hence, the appellant failed to prove any error in the findings of the High Court that the acceptance of resignation was in compliance with the requirements of MEPS Act and Rules. (Para 15) Shriram Manohar Bande v. Uktranti Mandal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : AIR 2024 SC 2325

Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Act, 1977 (Maharashtra); Section 7 and Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Rules, 1981 (Maharashtra); Rule 40 – Termination of service challenged – On grounds of non-compliance of MEPS Act and Rules while accepting the resignation – Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40 of the Rules does not impose any guidelines for acceptance of the resignation upon the management. Held, mere non communication of acceptance of resignation to the employee would not render the termination invalid. (Para 18 & 23) Shriram Manohar Bande v. Uktranti Mandal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : AIR 2024 SC 2325

Termination from service – Violation of principles of natural justice – Termination of the services of the appellant without holding disciplinary enquiry was unjustified and dehors the requirements of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Termination order declared illegal and appellant reinstated in service. (Para 19 & 20) Sandeep Kumar v. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 308 : AIR 2024 SC 1916

Constitution of India – Special leave Petition against order of High Court – To set aside impugned termination order – Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered. Termination from service order is liable to be set aside. Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 120 : AIR 2024 SC 948

University

Validity and interpretation of Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, concerning the counting of past teaching experience for the direct recruitment of Assistant Professors. - Whether Regulation 10(f)(iii) is ultra vires the UGC Act, 1956, or constitutional rights - Whether the High Court erred in reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without a challenge to its vires - Validity of shortlisting criteria based on teaching experience under Tables 3A and 3B of the 2018 Regulations. Held, Regulation 10(f)(iii) is not ultra vires the UGC Act or constitutional rights. The regulation is consistent with the enabling legislation and policy objectives of the UGC. The High Court erred in reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without finding it ultra vires. Courts cannot rewrite subordinate legislation or discard its provisions without a valid challenge based on legislative competence or conflict with constitutional rights. The Court upheld the shortlisting mechanism based on teaching experience and academic scores as rational and consistent with the 2018 Regulations. It emphasized that teaching experience contributes to the quality of candidates and aligns with UGC's policy to ensure merit-based recruitment. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, affirming the validity of the UGC Regulations, 2018. It restored the criteria for shortlisting candidates based on teaching experience and academic merit, emphasizing the regulatory framework's intent to prioritize experienced and qualified candidates. Appeals allowed. The writ petitions challenging Regulation 10(f)(iii) were dismissed, and the High Court's decision was overturned. Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

Age of Superannuation – Applicability of AICTE and UGC Regulations - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging retirement at the age of 60 from the CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), a private unaided minority institution affiliated with Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), Telangana. The appellant, initially appointed as Lecturer in JNT University in 1985 and later promoted to Director of CSIIT in 1998, contended that his superannuation age should be 65 years as per the 2010 amendments to AICTE and UGC regulations. The appellant's retirement at 60, effective from August 14, 2018, was challenged in writ proceedings, which were dismissed by the High Court. Whether the amended AICTE and UGC regulations enhancing the age of superannuation to 65 years are applicable to the appellant. Held, the appellant's retirement at the age of 60 was valid as the State of Telangana, through G.O.Ms.No.40 (2012), had not adopted the 2010 amendments to AICTE and UGC regulations. CSIIT, being a self-financed minority institution affiliated with JNTU, is bound by the regulations of the affiliating university, which prescribe 60 years as the age of retirement. AICTE and UGC regulations are not binding on institutions unless adopted by the respective state governments or affiliating universities. The appellant, primarily involved in administrative work as Director, did not qualify as a "teacher" under the regulations. The appellant's acceptance of retirement benefits indicated acquiescence to his superannuation. The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the appellant, noting factual differences and limited applicability to the case at hand. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellant's retirement at the age of 60 and upholding the High Court's judgment. P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 958

A statutory body such as a University cannot act unfairly and arbitrarily in matters of regularization. The decision to regularize should not be based "on the whims of the decision-making authority"; rather, it should have good reasons to justify the exercise of its power. Maitreyee Chakraborty v. Tripura University, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 598 : AIR 2024 SC 4431

Appointment of Vice Chancellors (VC) – Power to decide on dispute regarding appointment of (VC) – Held, in case(s) where the Chief Minister of the State has objected to the inclusion of any name in the panel and such objection is not acceptable to the Chancellor or where the Chancellor has an objection against empanelment of any particular name for which he has assigned his own reasons, all such files shall be put up before the Supreme Court. The final decision in this regard shall be taken by the Supreme Court after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the objectors. (Para 22) State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : AIR 2024 SC 3319 : (2024) 8 SCC 369

Regularization of service – UGC directions must be followed by universities – UGC's letter to University directing regularization of the teachers who were selected through a regular selection process and possessed required qualifications was not followed by university. Appellants' appointments were made according to a regular selection process. Held, considering the statutory position of UGC, there was no reason for the University not to follow directions of UGC. The University's action of not continuing them and starting a fresh selection process is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the employment of the appellants will have to be continued after merger with the regular establishment of the University. Respondents directed to reinstate the appellants. (Para 20, 23 & 28) Meher Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 303 : AIR 2024 SC 2097

Workmen

Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu); Section 3 – Workmen eligible for permanent status under Section 3 of the Act – Applicability of the Act – Held, both requirements, of the establishment being covered under the definition of industrial establishment as provided and that of the employee having uninterruptedly continued in service for 480 days or more for 24 months, having been met. Held, the Act would apply to the parties to dispute. Further held, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the Inspector of Labour which concluded that the members of the respondent-Union be given permanent employment. When an issue stands already decided then putting those who enjoy an order in their favour, once more of having to re-establish their claim, would be unjustified. Hence, the order of Inspector of Labour be complied with. (Para 27 & 28) Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu); Section 7 – Applicability of Act – Exemption of establishments and their workmen engaged exclusively in the construction of buildings and the like or other construction work be it structural, mechanical, or electrical. Held, the construction to be undertaken by the Corporation, is only one of the many activities to be undertaken by it. Hence, it would not allow the Corporation to wash its hands off the responsibilities or obligations under the Act. (Para 23 & 24) Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 402