No Employee Should Be Retired With Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Compelling Circumstances/Very Serious Charges: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 4 [WRIT - A NO. 16300 OF 2024]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 4

While granting interest on delayed payment of post-retiral dues to a Nagar Palika employee, the Allahabad High Court observed that unless there are compelling reasons or serious charges, an employee should not be retired with disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

Chargesheet Issued In 2009, No Inquiry For 15 Years: Allahabad High Court Terminates Disciplinary Proceedings

Case Title: Ram Bali Ram v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 7 [WRIT - A No. - 14564 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 7

Recently, the Allahabad High Court terminated the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner-employee in which chargesheet had issued in 2009 and no action was taken since then.

Petitioner was a Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Though he was set to retire on 31.12.2009, he was suspended on 29.12.2009 due to a pending inquiry against him. He was served a chargesheet on 29.12.2009. After his retirement, the post retiral dues were withheld and there was no action regarding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

Power Of Transfer Exercised As Substitute For Infliction Of Lawful Punishment Is Malice In Law: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 19 [WRIT - A No. - 16814 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 19

The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order for transfer of the petitioner by the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited as being malicious and without justification. It was held that the transfer order cannot be used a measure for punishment.

“The exercise of the power of transfer as a substitute for the infliction of lawful punishment in exercise of the employer's disciplinary jurisdiction, is verily an instance of malice in law,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

Allahabad High Court Quashes GO To The Extent It Denied Gratuity To Teachers Continuing Beyond Superannuation

Case Title: Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52 [WRIT - A No. - 292 of 2025]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a Government Order to the extent it denied gratuity to teachers who opted to continue beyond their age of retirement, citing primacy of statute over executive fiat.

Petition was filed challenging Clause 4(1) of G.O. dated 22.06.2018 as well as communication of rejection of claim for gratuity to the petitioner. By said G.O., gratuity was denied ostensibly due to teachers working for additional years, which entitled them to more service benefits.

[U.P Govt Servant Seniority Rules] No Provision For Finding Authority To Redetermine Seniority After Final List Has Been Prepared: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shiv Datt Joshi And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Secretariat Administration Dept. Lko And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82 [WRIT - A No. - 9193 of 2023]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that under the U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 once a seniority list is published, the authority publishing the same becomes functus officio and cannot reagitate the seniority list again and again.

Justice Alok Mathur held

“On perusal of the U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991, we find that there is no provision for review of the final seniority list which has been once prepared after following the procedure prescribed under rule 5, meaning thereby that once a final seniority list has been issued after deciding the objections filed by the concerned parties against the tentative seniority list, finding authority becomes functious officio and does not retain any power to repeatedly exercise the same power to redetermine the seniority between the same group of persons again and again.”

Employee Cannot Be Paid Back Wages For Work Missed Due To Confinement In Jail, 'No Work No Pay' Applies: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shivakar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 84 [WRIT - A No. - 10045 of 2020]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 84

The Allahabad High Court has denied relief to an employee who was confined in jail for almost 3 years holding that missed work due to confinement in jail does not entitle the employee to get back wages for the said period as the principle of 'no work no pay' applies.

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Centre, Railways For Denying Notional Increment To Employees Retiring A Day Before July 1

Case Title: R.K. Prasad and others v. Union of India and others [WRIT - A NO. 13305 OF 2024]

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Union of India and various departments of Indian Railways for denying the benefit of notional increment to employees retiring on 30^th June, despite the decision of the Supreme Court in Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others and Union of India & Ors. Vs M. Siddaraj.

Approval Granted 30 Yrs Ago Can't Be Withdrawn On Ground That Post Was Not Created By Competent Authority: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shafique Ahmad v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6586 of 2024]

Allahabad High Court has held that approval for a post sanctioned 30 years ago cannot be withdrawn only on grounds that it was not created by competent authority. It held that the person employed on such post cannot be denied salary after 30 years of continuous work and being paid without allegations of fraud or malpractice.

Legal Heirs Can't Seek Compassionate Appointment When Major Penalty Imposed On Deceased Employee Remains On Record: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Saurabh Lal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 16327 of 2022]

The Allahabad High Court has held that legal heirs of a deceased employee are disqualified from seeking compassionate appointment when major penalty imposed remains in record at the time death and not where the major penalty though imposed, had adverse impact only for few years.

A major penalty (not specified) was imposed on the father of the petitioner for a period of 2 years. After the expiry of this period the petitioner's father was granted promotion to the post of Manager of Union of India, Branch Collectrate, District Mau, U.P. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Deputy Branch Head at Branch Amiliya, District Rewa (U.P.).

Order Of Termination Of Probationer Neither Dismissal Nor Removal Unless It Is Against Employee's Character Or Integrity: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sengar v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 63857 of 2007]

The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of termination of a probationer is neither an order of dismissal nor removal unless there is something against his character or integrity, which would make it an order of punishment.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held

“It is well settled that termination of services of a probationer under the Rules of the Employment or in exercise of Contractual Right is neither per se dismissal nor removal. However, if the order visits the employee against his character or integrity, it would be an order by way of punishment irrespective of whether the employee was a mere probationer or temporary.”

Heirs Of Deceased Employee Shouldn't Be Denied Reimbursement Of Medical Bills On Technical Grounds Like Limitation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Maimuna Begum v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 122 of 2025]

While dealing with issue of reimbursement of medical bills, the Allahabad High Court has held that where there is entitlement of incidental benefits of service, the same should not be denied on grounds of delay and limitation in law.

Petitioner, widow, approached the employer for reimbursement of the medical bills of her husband. Her claim was rejected as being barred by limitation. Accordingly, she approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleading that she being a widow was in shock of the death of her husband and could only approach the authority after her recovery.

Stigmatic: Allahabad High Court Quashes Food Corporation's Unilateral Order To Recover Alleged Excess Fee Paid To Empanelled Advocate

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Dixit v. Union Of India And 7 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41735 of 2024]

The Allahabad High Court has quashed orders issued by the Food Corporation of India for recovering alleged excess fees paid to an empanelled advocate, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

The Court held that the authorities had overstepped their jurisdiction in passing a stigmatic order which was depriving the petitioner of the compensation for the services he had offered.

A division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the inquiry report in question was not provided to the petitioner and no show cause notice was issued to him against the alleged excess payments made to him.

No Mandatory Requirement Of Graduation Or Post-Graduation Prescribed By Govt For Post Of Anganbadi Karyakatri: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt Chandani Pandey v. State Of Up And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3371 of 2025]

The Allahabad High Court has held that for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri, whether the candidate has done graduation or has a post-graduation degree is irrelevant. It held that the merit list must be prepared based on the minimum qualification, i.e., High School and Intermediate qualifications, not graduate and post-graduate degrees.

Petitioner approached the High Court seeking consideration for her candidature on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri, which was rejected because she could not upload her post-graduation degree with the application form due to technical glitch.

Compassionate Appointments Not Intended As Windfall For Kin Of Deceased, Only Meant To Keep "Kitchen Fire Burning": Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Chanchal Sonkar v. Chairman, State Bank Of India And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1680 of 2025]

Recently, while dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court observed that “compassionate ground appointments are not intended to create a windfall for the kin of the deceased. The employer is only required to assess the financial condition which keeps the kitchen fire burning.”

This observation was made by Justice Ajay Bhanot in the context that financial conditions for grant of compassionate appointment have not been defined anywhere but has to be examined in light of the applicable law.

Losing Control Over Subordinates Is Not Misconduct: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Jail Superintendent

Case Title: Raj Kishore Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reforms Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT A No. - 6716 of 2024]

While setting aside order deducting 10% pension of the Jail Superintendent for 3 years on account of misconduct, the Allahabad High Court held that misconduct is different from carelessness, or inaction and therefore, no punishment could have been given under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulation.

It was held that under the said regulation, pension can be withheld due to grave misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss to the government, which does not include losing control subordinates leading to prisoners escaping.

Can't File Miscellaneous Application To Seek Interest On Gratuity After Disposal Of Writ Petition: Allahabad HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:26054

Allahabad High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Prakash Singh dismissed an application seeking interest on delayed gratuity, filed by a retired office assistant. The court held that once a writ petition is finally decided, a miscellaneous application seeking substantive reliefs like interest, is not maintainable. The court explained that gratuity and pension are statutory rights and not govt largesse. However, it held that post-judgement modifications are not possible unless permitted by law.

When Two Procedures Exist Under Standing Orders, Management May Select Either Unless Mala Fide Proven: Allahabad HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:30708

Allahabad High Court: A single judge bench of justice Brijraj Singh dismissed a writ petition, holding that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) properly followed their Standing Orders by striking off the employee's name following his unauthorised absence. The court found that the employee was given adequate opportunity through show cause notices, and that the petition suffered from inexcusable delay.

Employees Provident Fund Act] No Appeal Lies Against Rejection Of Review Plea, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another [WRIT - C No. - 9281 of 2025]

Relying on its earlier decision in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Another, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a writ petition would be maintainable against the order in review under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as no statutory appeal is provided against such order.

Once Candidates Are Absorbed On Regular Posts, Irregularity In Initial Appointments Is Deemed To Have Been Cured: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Devendra Singh v. State Of Up And 4 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 167 of 2024]

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the appellants-employees were absorbed against vacancies in regular posts, any irregularity which would have existed at the time of their initial appointment would be deemed to have been cured.

While dealing with subseqeunt termination of employees due appointments being made on unsanctioned posts, the bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held the appellants were not at fault even though there was irregularity in their initial appointments.

Disciplinary Action | Punishment Order Not Invalid For Mere Non-Mention Of Specifics Of Show Cause Notice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dharvendra Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 290 [WRIT - A No. - 9632 of 2025]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 290

The Allahabad High Court has held that unless there is any clear illegality, punishment order cannot be held to be invalid merely because it does not include all specifics of the show cause notice.

The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,

“This Court is of the opinion that a punishment order cannot be held invalid merely on the ground that it does not specifically mention the details of the show cause notice or the written reply submitted by the petitioner, if the substance of both is duly considered and discussed in the order. Unless there is a manifest procedural irregularity or a clear illegality apparent on the face of the record, such minor omissions would not render the order unsustainable in the eyes of law.”

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Person Officiated To Higher Post On Orders Is Entitled To Pay In That Cadre Even If Later Found To Be Ineligible: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case title: The Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division and four others vs Sri K. Narayana Murthy

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who was officiated to a higher post on official orders is entitled to the salary of that post, regardless of subsequent findings of ineligibility.

A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed the order in a writ petition challenging decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed that the respondent be given the pay of the cadre he was officiated to, for his period of officiation, irrespective of having the requisite qualifications. The CAT also entitled the respondent to all consequential benefits including pension fixation.

Disciplinary Orders Attain Finality Upon Communication, Can't Be Unilaterally Modified: AP HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:APHC:2016 | B. Asheervadam v. UCO Bank

Andhra Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N set aside UCO Bank's unilateral revision of disciplinary punishment against a former Assistant Manager. The court held that the bank's act of enhancing punishment without issuing notice or seeking response from the affected employee was illegal and manifestly arbitrary. The court clarified that disciplinary authorities cannot arbitrarily modify penalty orders and impose harsher punishments. Further, it held that compulsory retirement automatically entitles an employee to service benefits.

Daughter-In-Law Integral Part Of Family, Entitled To Compassionate Appointment: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Number: WRIT PETITION (AT) No.2139 OF 2021

Case Name: Smt. K. Hamakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.

The Court further noted that while the government recognises a son or daughter of the deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, the daughter-in-law, despite not being traditionally classified as family, should also be extended the same benefit.

Loading, Maintenance And Pay Loader Workers Not Short Period Employments, Entitled To Provident Fund Under EPF Act: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 11/2025

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that employees engaged by security agencies for the purposes of loading and unloading, office or factory maintenance and Pay Loader work are covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) and are entitled to the Provident Fund.

A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held that the employees mentioned above cannot be equated with those persons who are “employed for a short period on account of some passing necessity or some temporary emergency beyond the control of the company” and are, thus, entitled to the benefits of the EPF Act.

Seniority For Promotion Is Determined By Date Of Promotion To Feeder Category, Not From Date Of Initial Appointment: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case No. : Writ Petition Nos. 27026 and 27865 of 2024

Name of the case: T. Venkateswarlu and Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

A single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that seniority for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector is determined by the date of promotion to the feeder category (Head Constable/ASI), not from the date of initial appointment as a Police Constable.

Court Can Order Reinstatement Of Acquitted Employee If Charges, Evidence In Disciplinary Proceedings Same As Criminal Case: AP High Court

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 3995 2017

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not grant a right to the employee to claim reinstatement however if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are similar and if evidence, witnesses and circumstances are the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension.

ESI Contribution, Can't Exempt Establishment Based On Pvt Insurance And Not Having Local Dispensary: AP HC

Neutral Citation: APHC010687162011

Andhra Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the mere absence of an ESI dispensary nearby cannot exempt an establishment from liability under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (“ESI Act”). The court clarified that only the appropriate govt is empowered to grant such exemptions under Section 87 of the Act, and that such exemptions ought to follow a separate application and inquiry process.

Bombay High Court

Bombay HC Sets Aside ESIC Order For Denying Hearing And Relying On Undisclosed Reports

Case title: Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 99

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh set aside the Employees' State Insurance Corporation's (ESIC) rejection of Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal. The court found that ESIC violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting a hearing, despite disputed facts about when the company received the original order. The court also ruled that ESIC's order was flawed as it relied on an undisclosed committee report. Thus, the matter was remanded to the ESIC Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.

Failure To Follow Retrenchment Procedure, Employee Crossing Retirement Age, Bombay HC Directs Lumpsum Compensation

Case Title: J Fibre Corporation v. Maruti Harishchandra Amrute

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 101

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne partially allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The court held that an employee who had already crossed retirement age could not be reinstated, but was entitled to lumpsum compensation for the period between illegal termination and retirement. The court observed that while the employer had valid business reasons for reducing staff, failure to follow proper retrenchment procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the termination illegal. Thus, the court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,58,073 covering the period from termination until the employee's retirement date.

Chairman Of Industrial Establishment Held Liable For Non-Compliance With Labor Court Order: Bombay HC

Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 137

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.

Payment Of Gratuity Delayed Beyond One Month Of Retirement, Attracts 10% Interest: Bombay HC

Case Title: Chetana Rajput v. Modern Education Society

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 155

Bombay High Court: A division bench comprising of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe held that Nowrosjee Wadia College had to pay gratuity with 10% interest to a retired teacher, as their retirement benefits had been delayed without justification. The court held that educational institutions cannot withhold gratuity for more than one month, even if there are disputes over the pension calculation.

If Fresh Appointment Made After Termination, Previous Service Period Cannot Be Counted For Pension Calculations: Bombay HC

Case title: Dr. V.N. Madhu vs. S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College & Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.253 OF 2020)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163

Bombay High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that prayed for the counting of earlier service in pension calculations. The court held that any reappointment made after terminating the previous service cannot be linked to the earlier service period. The court explained that if previous service was terminated, the reappointment made after proper selection process is considered afresh for pension calculations.

If An Employee Is Exonerated In Disciplinary Proceedings, Interest Ought To Be Provided On Delayed Payment Of Retirement Benefits: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:17375-DB

Bombay High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe allowed a writ petition that was filed by a widow asking for interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits to her late husband. The court ruled that when an employee is acquitted or exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, the retirement benefits ought to be paid along with interest from the date of retirement. Further, the court rejected the argument that there was no liability to pay interest. The court held that even if the proceedings are abated, interest ought to be paid.

Retired Employee Entitled To Interest On Delayed Retirement Benefits After Exoneration In Departmental Inquiry: Bombay HC

Case Title: Narayan Pundalik Pathade v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through Its Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 111

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe ruled in favor of a retired Municipal Corporation employee, directing payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits. The court held that when retirement benefits are withheld due to pending inquiry and the employee is subsequently exonerated, interest becomes payable from the date following retirement. It clarified that the doctrine of restitution applies in such cases.

Part-Time Teachers In Night Junior Colleges Not Entitled To Pensionary Benefits Under MEPS Rules: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:11831-DB | Rajani Rajan Dixit v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that was filed by a retired night school teacher seeking pension. The court held that part-time service in a night junior college do not qualify for pension as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act).

Voluntarily Abandoning Service Is Not Retrenchment: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5139

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Anil L. Pansare set aside multiple Industrial Court orders that had directed the reinstatement and back wages of several employees. These employees were absent from duty without notice. The court held that prolonged absence despite repeated calls amounted to voluntary abandonment of service, and not termination. Thus, the court held that retrenchment procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable.

Payment Of Gratuity Act Overrides Other State Pension Rules: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5311

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of justice MS Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Act'), prevails over the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('MCS Rules'), unless a specific exemption is provided under Section 5 of the Act. The court clarified that the mere pendency of proceedings or any minor punishment under the latter, cannot justify withholding gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Act.

Labour Court Cannot Grant Monetary Relief Without Pre-existing Entitlement: Bombay HC Clarifies Scope Of Recovery Under Section 33C(2), Industrial Disputes Act

Case Tile: Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala v. Casby Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 104

'Delay In Deciding Reference Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Relief': Bombay High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995

Case Title: Sarva Shramik Sangh v. The Commissioner & Ors.

Case No.- Writ Petition NO. 2644 OF 2020

The Bombay High Court has held that delay in adjudication of an industrial reference cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny just relief to workmen whose services were illegally terminated. The Court observed that when the delay is not attributable to the workmen and the termination is found to be in violation of law, reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.

A bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav was hearing writ petitions filed by the employer and trade union, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in 2019. The case concerned the termination of workmen from a hospital in 1995 when they sought permanency. The Industrial Tribunal had concluded that the termination of the workers was illegal, but did not reinstate them due to the lapse of time. Instead, it awarded the workers a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh.

Payment Of Gratuity Act Applies To Zilla Parishad Employees: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5300

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench): A single judge bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, applies to Zilla parishad employees. However, the court explained that Section 4(6) of the Act allows the withholding or forfeiture of gratuity if an employee faces criminal proceedings that involve moral turpitude.

Industrial Disputes Act; Section 33(C)(2) Only Applies If Entitlement Is Established Through Undisputed Evidence: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15061

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), consisting of Justice Prafulla Khubalkar dismissed a challenge to a labour court award that provided overtime wages with interest to retired employees. The court held that an employees' right to overtime wages was a pre-existing statutory right under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, and that it can be enforced through Section 33(c )(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Bombay HC Finds Chairman Of Industrial Establishment Liable For Non-Compliance With Labor Court Order

Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 154

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.

Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court Upholds Gratuity Entitlement Despite Corporate Insolvency Proceedings

Case No.: WPA 532 of 2025 | M/s. Stesalit Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing the payment of gratuity to an employee. The court ruled that gratuity payments remain a statutory obligation even after a company undergoes Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). It held that Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code explicitly excludes gratuity funds from forming part of the corporate debtor's estate. Lastly, the court noted that CIRP merely facilitates a change in management and does not extinguish a company's obligations under the labor laws.

Prior Option To Work As Para Teacher Shouldn't Act As Deterrent, Calcutta HC Permits To Work As Samprasarak For Better Service Benefits

Case No. : W.P.A. 29070 of 2024

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that prior exercised option to work as a para teacher should not act as a deterrent to the employee to work as Samprasarak/Samprasarika to avail better service tenure and benefits.

Employee's Service In NTPC School, Approved By West Bengal Board , Must Be Considered For Pension: Calcutta HC

Case No. : W.P.A. 28603 of 2024

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that the employee's service at NTPC High School (7th April 1993 to 4th July 2002), though in a recognized unaided institution, must be considered for pensionary benefits as it was approved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Government of West Bengal.

Nature Of Duties Determines 'Workman' Status Under Industrial Disputes Act: Calcutta HC

Case No.: WPA 281 of 2025 | Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition that challenged an industrial tribunal's holding that an accountant was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court ruled that despite his accounting role, the workman primarily performed clerical functions without any supervisory or managerial authority. It explained that actual job functions, not designation, determine 'workman' status.

Delay In Appointment, Employee Entitled For Qualifying Service For Pension, But No Wages: Calcutta HC

Case No.: W.P.S.T. 210 of 2024

Calcutta High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya allowed a petition that was filed by a doctor, whose pension was denied due to insufficient qualifying service. The court ruled that if the Government delays in implementing court mandated absorption of an employee, the period of delay should be counted towards the qualifying service for pension purposes. The court held that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the delay caused by the authorities.

Increase Of Working Hours Without Compensation In Government Mints, Calcutta High Court Finds Tribunal Award Reasonable

Case No.: WPA 4724 of 2022 | Calcutta Mint Workers Union & Ors. v. National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Ors.

Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award that denied compensation to mint workers for increased working hours. The court found that extending working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission was reasonable, as it was accompanied by enhanced pay and benefits.

Departmental Proceedings After Compulsory Retirement, Since Not Under Rule 9, CCS (Pension) Rules, Can't Continue : Calcutta HC

Case No: MAT 739 of 2017

Calcutta High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra dismissed two cross appeals. Both appeals arose out of a single judge order that directed the release of retirement benefits to a former RPF officer. The court explained that proceedings initiated under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987, cannot continue after compulsory retirement. Further, the court also held that since the proceedings were not initiated under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“Pension Rules”), the pension benefits could not be withheld either.

Determination Of Employment Status Is A Mixed Question Of Law And Fact; Requires Adjudication By Industrial Tribunal: Calcutta HC

Case No.: WPA 28424 of 2024

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed the writ petition filed by the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IIMC). The bench held that an Industrial Tribunal is the right forum to determine if IIMC was the principal employer. It further held that mere denial by IIMC was not sufficient to preclude a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It ruled that an employer-employee relationship is a mixed question of law and fact, and must be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

Government Employee Dying A Day Before 60th Birthday Is Deemed Under 60, Dependent Eligible For Compassionate Appointment : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Sk. Monikul Hossain VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.A. 28275 OF 2024

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that a government employee is deemed not to have completed 60 years of age if they die one day before their 60th birthday, therefore making their dependent eligible for compassionate appointment.

Daily-Rated And Casual Workers Must Be Counted While Determining Gratuity Act Applicability: Calcutta HC

Case No: WPA 2763 of 2025

Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) allowed the grant of gratuity to a former employee of Midnapur District Service-cum-Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. The court held that the union came within the scope of Section 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that denying these dues after 34 years of service amounted to unfair labour practice.

Long-Term Casual Workers Performing Essential Duties Are Entitled To Regularization, Reduction In Workload Not Valid Ground To Deny It : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Case No. : WPA 27693 of 2024

The Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that long-term casual workers performing essential duties are entitled to regularization, and a reduction in workload is not a valid ground to deny it.

Employer Can't Alter Recorded D.O.B. Of Government Employee Beyond Prescribed 5-Year Period From Date Of Initial Appointment : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Sabita Sen v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.A. 4656 of 2025

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Aniruddha Roy, J. held that an employer cannot unilaterally alter the recorded date of birth of a government employee beyond the prescribed five-year limitation period from the date of joining.

Authority Imposing Damages Must Provide Detailed Reasoning For Penalties Under EPF Act: Calcutta HC

Case No.: WPA 1945 of 2025 | Central Board of Trustees, through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 Regional Office Howrah v. The Registrar Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Anr.

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Industrial Tribunal's order that had set aside damages imposed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The Court held that authorities imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund Act must provide detailed reasoning and proper calculation of penalties. It found that the original order was arbitrary as it lacked proper reasoning and had imposed damages for periods when the school was an exempted establishment. The court ruled that the power to award damages under Section 14B is quasi-judicial in nature and must follow principles of natural justice.

Provident Fund's “Reserve & Surplus” Amount Transferred To Statutory Fund, Employees Can't Claim It Separately From Provident Fund Dues : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Dilip Kumar Choudhury & Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur, EPFO & Ors.

Case No. : WPA 27817 of 2023

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that once a provident fund trust is dissolved and its funds are transferred to the statutory Provident Fund, employees cannot claim a separate share from the “Reserve & Surplus” fund after receiving their full dues.

Employer Withholding Best Evidence, Grounds To Draw Adverse Inference In Favor Of Employee: Calcutta HC

Case No.: WPA 28770 of 2024 | Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Sk. Alam Ismail & Ors.

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that an employee engaged as a 'badli' worker for over 37 years was entitled to gratuity. The court rejected the employer's argument that he did not complete the requisite continuous service. The court held that an employer's failure to produce best evidence leads to an adverse inference against the employer, and the burden of proving non-eligibility lies with the employer.

Illegal Disciplinary Proceedings And Termination Of Services Of Co-op Bank Employee : Calcutta HC Sets Aside Order

Case No.: WPA 4221 of 2023

Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the disciplinary proceedings against a senior bank employee were conducted by officials who did not have the authority to do so. Consequently, the court also set aside his termination order. The court ruled that both the charge sheet and the termination order violated Rule 106 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.

Punishment Of Censure, Claim For Promotion During Disciplinary Proceedings Rightly Rejected : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Dibyajyoti Ghosh v. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors.

Case No. : MAT 1751 of 2024

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending at time of recommendation for promotion can be granted promotion only prospectively after the conclusion of proceedings.

Shortfall In Pensionable Service Caused By State's Delay In Absorption Can't Defeat Pension Claim : Calcutta High Court

Case Name : Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.S.T. 210 of 2024

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the delay by the State in absorbing an employee cannot be used to deny pension benefits if such delay alone causes shortfall in qualifying service.

“No Work, No Pay” Doesn't Apply If Appointment Delay Is Due To Authorities' Fault : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Padmavathi Sakkinala v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : FMA 1235 OF 2024

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Harish Tandon, J and Prasenjit Biswas, J held that the principle of “No Work, No Pay” does not apply when the delay in appointment is due to the fault of the authorities, thus entitling the affected person to monetary benefits.

Central Govt Is Appropriate Authority For Industrial Disputes Involving Nationalized Companies Irrespective Of Contrary Notifications : Calcutta HC

Case Name: M/s. Braithwaite & Co. Limited v. Second Industrial Tribunal & Ors.

Case No.: WPA 2477 of 2012

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that when an industry is nationalized and carried on under the authority of the Central Government pursuant to a statute like the Nationalization Act, the Central Government is the “appropriate government” under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of industrial disputes.

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Granted To Posts Under Urban Local Bodies In Absence Of Specific Policy: Calcutta HC

Case Name : Chaitali Roy (Mandal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : WPA/20811/2022

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. held that the compassionate appointments cannot be granted to posts under Urban Local Bodies in the absence of a specific policy governing such appointments.

Central Administrative Tribunal

CAT Srinagar Directs J&K Administration To Grant Full Service Benefits To Retired Officer After 20 Years

Case-Title: Khazir Mohammad Dar vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors , 2025

The Srinagar bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the J&K administration to grant full service benefits, including seniority and promotion, to 70-year-old retired officer, while quashing the government order denying him seniority and promotion.

The applicant had challenged this government order claiming it was blatant violation of the High Court's judgment, which directed full service benefits based on his entire tenure, including time served in the Forest Department which was not complied by government.

CAT Quashes Discharge Order Against Retd J&K Govt Employee Over Alleged Misconduct For Multiple Marriages, Grants 50% Back Wage

Case-Title: Jahangir Khan vs State through commissioner/secretary to Home Dept. & Anr. , 2025

In a major relief to a retired government employee, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, has quashed a 25-year-old discharge order and directed the government to release 50% of back wages along with pensionary benefits.

'Arbitrary' : CAT Sets Aside Transfer Of IRS Officer Sameer Wankhede From Mumbai To Chennai

Case : Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede vs Union of India | OA No. 3677/2024

The Central Administrative Tribunal has set aside the transfer of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede, who courted controversy over his role investigating the Aryan Khan drug case in 2021, from Mumbai to Chennai.

The CAT Principal Bench found the transfer order issued by the Department of Revenue in May 2022 to be "arbitrary and violative of their own transfer policy." The bench of Justice Ranjit More(Chairman) and Rajinder Kashyap (Member (A)) further observed that the stand of the Department towards Wankhede "smacks their bias towards him."

Chhattisgarh High Court

Failure To Comply With Condition Not Specified In Recruitment Rules Or Advertisement, Can't Justify Rejection Of Candidate's Appointment: Chhattisgarh HC

Case No. : WPS No. 7925 of 2024

A single judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that failure to comply with a condition which was not stipulated in the recruitment rules or advertisement, cannot serve as a valid ground for rejecting a candidate's appointment.

Illegal Termination During Probation, Chhattisgarh HC Declines To Review Judgement

Case No. : REVP No. 274 of 2024

A single judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that a review cannot be used to reargue the case or introduce new arguments without an apparent error or new evidence. Therefore, the employee, who was illegally terminated, was allowed to continue her service.

Withholding Gratuity Of Retired Class III Employee Without Any Pre-Retirement Inquiry Deemed Illegal: Chhattisgarh HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:2151-DB | State of Chhattisgarh v. B.P. Tiwari

Chhattisgarh High Court: A division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the State cannot withhold gratuity from a retired Revenue Sub-Inspector without any prior departmental inquiry. Following State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the court ruled that recovery from Class III employees post-retirement is illegal unless proceedings were initiated before superannuation. It explained that despite the allegations of financial misappropriation, the State's failure to commence an inquiry or issue a show-cause notice before retirement, invalidated the recovery.

All Pensioners Form A Single Class, & Classification Based On Cut-Off Date For Revised Pension Benefits Is Arbitrary & Violative Of Article 14: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioners Sangh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No. : WPS No. 3602 of 2018

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that differentiating pension benefits based on the retirement date (pre-2006 vs. post-2006) violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it creates an arbitrary classification without a justifiable relation to the objective of pension revision.

In Absence Of Statutory Provision For Waiting List, Unfilled Vacancies Can't Be Claimed By Next Merit Candidate : Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Sailesh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Case No. : WA No. 124 of 2025

A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that in absence of statutory provision for a waiting list, the unfilled vacancy cannot be claimed by the next candidate in merit, and such vacancies must be carried forward for the future recruitment.

Dismissal Is Last Resort; Disciplinary Authorities Must Consider Lesser Penalties Before Extreme Punishment: Chhattisgarh HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:11939-DB | Ramsagar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal set aside the compulsory retirement of a police constable, finding the punishment to be disproportionate. The court held that disciplinary authorities must consider lesser punishments provided under Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations before imposing major penalties on constables. The court observed that dismissal should be last resort and should not be inflicted until all other means have failed.

Procedural Safeguards Mandatory For Stigmatic Termination Even In Contractual Employment: Chhattisgarh HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:517 | Yaad Das Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ruled that stigmatic termination of contractual employees requires adherence to procedural safeguards and natural justice principles. The court set aside the termination order of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, and ruled that allegations of misconduct necessitate a proper inquiry and fair hearing even in contractual employment.

Delhi High Court

Retrospective Pay Reduction Without Prior Notice And Recovery Of Excess Payments After 19 Years Is Not Permissible : Delhi High Court

Case Name : Asha Ram Nehra v. Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 234

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Manoj Jain held that reducing employee's pay retrospectively without prior notice and recovering excess payments after the period of 19 years is not permissible.

Punishment Is Not Disproportionate When Officer Displays Negligent And Irresponsible Conduct', Delhi High Court

Case Title: Babrey Singh versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 30

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Petition challenging an order of punishment awarded to the Petitioner for being irresponsible while supervising an area he was assigned. The Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate as the Petitioner had been negligent in a similar incident in the past and had shown no signs of improvement leading in another such incident where criminals could steal under the supervision and watch of the Petitioner.

Cause Of Action For Claiming Family Pension Arises Only Upon Death Of Pensioner; Speculative Claims Not Valid: Delhi HC

Title: Kumkum Dania v. Kulbhushan Dania

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 20

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that a claim for family pension requires a valid cause of action, which only arises on the death of the pensioner. The court allowed a revision petition filed against a suit seeking a mandatory injunction for the processing of family pension. It ruled that family pension under Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 is only triggered upon the pensioner's death, and speculative claims based on future uncertain events cannot constitute a valid cause of action.

Disability Attributable To Service, Authorities Cannot Contradict Medical Proof, Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension

Case Title: KULDEEP SINGH versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 39

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while allowing a Petition of the Petitioner seeking disability pension held that in absence of reasons as to how the disability arose, it could be presumed that in cases where the personnel while being appointed to the post was declared fit, the disability having arisen later could be attributable to or aggravated by service.

'APAR Can't Be Interfered With If It Complies With Guidelines And Is Not Actuated By Malice', Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ajit Kumar versus Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 43

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Writ Petition seeking to upgrade the Petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) based on being graded as 'very good' and 'outstanding' in the previous years. The Court further held that the APAR could not be interfered with as the Reporting Officer had written the same considering the attitude and dealings of the Petitioner and no guidelines or rules were violated in doing so.

Private Unaided Schools Are Subject To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 If Service Conditions Are Governed By Statutory Provisions Like DSEAR, 1973 : Delhi HC

Case Name : Jayati Mozumdar v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 266

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a private unaided school is subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if its service conditions are governed by statutory provisions like the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR).

MACP Scheme Benefits Must Be Granted Along With Pension Benefits To Employees Who Got Deemed Extension Of Service Till 60 Years: Delhi HC

Case Name : Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that MACP scheme benefits must be granted along with pension benefits to employees whose service is deemed to extend until 60 years.

Making Two Applications For One Recruitment Examination, Concealing One, Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

Case Title: PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a Petition whereby the Petitioner sought quashing of a notice by which her candidature was rejected. The Bench held that since the Petitioner had filed two application forms and had also concealed her educational qualifications before the Tribunal as well as the Court, she would not be entitled to any sort of relief.

Two Candidates Secure Same Marks, Age Determines Selection: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kalu Ram Saini versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 107

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur reiterated that in cases where two candidates secure the same marks, age should determine the selection of such candidates. The Bench allowed a Writ Petition wherein the Petitioner sought appointment based on having secured the same marks as that of another candidate who was appointed to the post.

Courts Can't Interfere In Assessment By Reporting Officer In Absence Of Bias Or Prejudice Against Employee:Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aabi Binju versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 319

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta partly allowed a writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that upheld the gradings given to the Petitioner in the ACR's by Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The Bench observed that while the Courts are required to consider and give weightage to the reports and gradings given by Officers, it is also necessary to consider whether such remarks or gradings were assigned without any bias or prejudice.

Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded to him within a period of eight weeks.

Employee's Death Attributable To Government Service Conditions; Entitled To Extraordinary Pension & Ex-Gratia Compensation : Delhi HC

Case Name : Seema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119

A division judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that deceased employee entitled to extraordinary pension and ex-gratia compensation, if death was attributable to or aggravated by government service conditions, such as exposure to hostile work environments or extreme weather conditions.

Employer Cannot Indefinitely Withhold Voluntary Retirement Without Valid Grounds: Delhi HC

Title: Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur ruled that an employer cannot indefinitely withhold voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules. The court held that pending vigilance clearance or mere potential inquiries are not valid grounds for withholding retirement. It further clarified that the employer must communicate any rejection before the notice period expires; else, it would amount to deemed acceptance.

Financial Misconduct In Government Service Warrants Dismissal; No Compassionate Allowance For Acts Of Moral Turpitude: Delhi HC

Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur upheld the dismissal of a Pay Clerk (Central Reserve Police Force) who was charged with financial misconduct and forgery. The court found that tampering with government records and misappropriation of funds constituted grave offenses that warranted his dismissal from service. The court also rejected the plea for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It held that acts involving moral turpitude disqualified the employee from such benefits.

No Liberalised Family Pension For Death During Casual Leave; Direct Causal Link With Official Duty Essential: Delhi HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:455-DB

Title: Leelam v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that death of a CRPF Sub-Inspector in a road accident during casual leave does not qualify for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation. The court held that mere classification of leave as 'on duty' under service rules is not enough unless there exists a direct causal link between the death and the performance of official duties. It ruled that for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation, the death must occur in circumstances related to the performance of official duties.

Compassionate Appointment, An Exception To Regular Recruitment, Can Be Denied If Dependents Received Sufficient Benefits : Delhi HC

Case Name : Yashvardhan v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 493

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that compassionate appointment, an exception to regular recruitment, is granted only to relieve financial hardship after a government servant's death in service. It can be denied if the family is financially stable or has received sufficient benefits under various schemes.

Delhi HC Upholds Dismissal Of CAPF Constable Who Remained Absent From Duty On Health Grounds, Says He Had Duty To Seek Leave After Surgery

Case title: Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 506

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a CAPF personnel for failing to intimate the force about his absence from duty due to his health condition.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was of the view that being in a disciplinary force, a high level of accountability was expected from the personnel and “it was incumbent upon him, post-surgery, to apprise the respondents of his medical condition and to seek leave from them.”

Adverse Grading Must Be Communicated To Employees If It Forms Basis For Denying Benefit Of NFSG

Case Title: ASITAV MOHANTY versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that if the grading in the Petitioner's ACR gave rise to a civil consequence, such grading must have been communicated to him. The Bench observed that if the Petitioner did not get an opportunity to challenge such grading, the Authority can't use such grading to deny him the grant of NFSG.

BSF Constable Losing Left Eye In Militant Encounter; Delhi High Court Rejects Union's Opposition , Grants Lump Sum Compensation

Case No. W.P.(C) 6466/2019

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur allowed a writ petition filed by a retired BSF officer. The court directed the Union of India to provide lump sum compensation to the retired BSF officer, for a disability that he suffered in the line of duty. The Court held that he was entitled to compensation under Rule 9(3) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS (EOP) Rules”), since his disability was attributable to his service. The Court also explained that any delay by the disabled in approaching the court is not a valid reason to deny disability compensation.

Courts Can't Interfere In Executive Function Of Pay Commission, Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Claiming Pay Parity

Case Title: DR. B.K. TIWARI ADVISER (NUTRITION) verus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 190

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the Petitioner who was an Advisor (Nutrition) could not be granted the same salary as that of the Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Bench held that since the posts were different, it could not be expected that the nature of duties performed by the employees could be the same and therefore, granting the petitioner the pay scale which was at par with the other posts would not be possible. The Bench further ruled that matters falling within the province of expert bodies like Pay Commission could not be interfered with by courts.

Courts Must Examine Judgments Of Acquittal Holistically To Arrive At Conclusion, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Judgment Of CAT

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul set aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the order of cancellation of the Respondent was quashed. The Bench noted that the order of cancellation was set aside on the basis of the Respondent having disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him while applying for appointment. However, the Tribunal had not examined whether it was an honourable acquittal which stood as the main issue before the Tribunal in determining if the cancellation of appointment was just and fair.

Death Gratuity Of Deceased Employee Can Be Attached In Execution Proceedings Against Legal Heirs As It Forms Part Of Estate: Delhi HC

Title: BUREAU OF OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS AND DD M/O INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CANARA BANK

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 622

Delhi High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the gratuity that remains unreleased at the time of an employee's death, becomes part of his estate. The court confirmed that this can also be attached against decrees passed against their legal heirs. The court clarified that Section 60(g) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, only protects gratuity if it is received during the employee's lifetime, and not when it passes on as inheritance.

Onus Of Proof On Review Medical Board To Prove How Disability Isn't Attributable To Or Aggravated By Service: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union Of India versus Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 424

The human body is made of skin, bone and sinew and it is not always that the body can keep pace with the spirit', said a Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul while refusing to interfere with the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal had held the respondent to be entitled to disability pension at 20%, rounded off to 50% for life in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v Ram Avtar.

Sad, Shocking State Of Affairs': Delhi High Court Orders MP Govt To Release Retiral Benefits Of Deceased IAS Officer

Case title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678

The Delhi High Court recently expressed shock at the conduct of Madhya Pradesh government in “victimising” a deceased IAS cadre officer by withholding his retiral benefits of almost 7 years.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that the officer was first victimized back in the year 2000, when he was misallocated Chhattisgarh cadre upon reorganization of MP.

Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath, Burden Shifts On Employer To Disprove Claims: Delhi HC

Title: DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL v. SANGEETA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 579

Delhi High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Manoj Jain dismissed a petition that was filed by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. The hospital was challenging a labour court award that awarded compensation to a sanitation worker. The court agreed with the Labour Court and ruled that the worker had been in continuous employment for over 240 days, and was improperly terminated. However, the court only awarded compensation instead of reinstatement.

Gauhati High Court

Gauhati High Court Directs Temporary Music Teacher To Seek Governor's Discretionary Powers For Qualifying Her Service For Pension

Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:6569

Gauhati High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Robin Phukan dismissed the petition for regularisation filed by a temporary music teacher, after serving for 18 continuous years. The court held that the claim was barred by res judicata as it was already adjudicated previously. However, the court provided another remedy: to approach the Governor to invoke discretionary powers under Rules 31 and 235 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The court explained that these rules allow for consideration of pensionary benefits, even if the employee does not meet the standard eligibility criteria.

SMC Retains Disciplinary Powers Until Provincialisation Notification Is Officially Published & Communicated : Gauhati HC

Case Name: Altaf Hussain vs. The State of Assam & Ors.

Case No.: WP(C) No. 666 of 2019

The Gauhati High Court comprising of Justice Kardak Ete held that the disciplinary powers of the School Management Committee (SMC) remain valid until the date of publication and communication of the provincialisation notification, regardless of any earlier retrospective effective date.

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Order Directing State To Appoint Woman With 70% Permanent Disability As Anganwadi Worker

Case Title: Program Officer, ICDS & Anr. vs State of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 11

After examining the duties and responsibilities of the Anganwadi worker provided in a government resolution, the Gujarat High Court recently set aside a single judge's order which had directed the state to appoint a woman with 70% permanent disability as an anganwadi worker.

The court said this after noting that the role necessitates the physical capability to perform tasks which involves taking care of infants, children and mother.

Labour Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 33(C)(2) Limited to Executing Pre-existing Rights, Not Determining New Claims: Gujarat HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:2680 | Jayanti Ishwarbhai Parmar v. Sabbir Mohammed Zubair

Gujarat High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.K. Thakker upheld the Labour Court's rejection of a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that without a pre-existing right, claims for additional wages, bonus, and rent were not maintainable under this provision. It explained that Labour Courts cannot adjudicate new claims under Section 33(C)(2), as their jurisdiction is similar to that of an executing court.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Punitive Retrenchment Without Regular Departmental Inquiry Violates Industrial Disputes Act: HP HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:3754 | State of HP v. Ramesh Chand

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel set aside the termination of a daily wage worker's services. The court noted that the termination was done under the guise of retrenchment following a preliminary inquiry. It upheld the Labour Court's finding that termination based on alleged misconduct without conducting a proper departmental inquiry was illegal. The court clarified that termination as punishment cannot be treated as simple retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.

MNREGA Workers are Not Employees Under Employees' Compensation Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Geeta Devi and Others

Case No.: FAO No. 07 of 2014

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, holding that in cases involving the death of worker employed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (“MNREGA”), 2005, compensation cannot be claimed under Employees' Compensation Act. The court determined that such workers do not fall under the definition of “employee” under Section 2(dd) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held: Once it is clear that MNREGA worker is not covered under the definition of Employee's Compensation Act, there is no right to claim compensation under the said Act for death of a person employed under MNREGA/Scheme, even if the death occurred during course of employment.

Higher Pension Cannot Be Granted Based On Duties Performed Temporarily: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Bishan Singh Chandel v/s Sh. Balwan Chand and another

Case No.: COPC No. 197 of 2022

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that pension benefits are to be granted based on the substantive post held by an employee, and not on temporary work assigned at a higher post for a brief period before retirement.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel : It may lead to a situation wherein any person on the verge of superannuation can be ordered or otherwise called upon to perform the duties of a higher post and after rendering such duties for 72 hours, 48 hours and 24 hours as the case may be and thereafter, such an incumbent shall be demanding pension on the basis of the pay of the higher post, duties whereof were being performed by him, when he superannuated. This defeats the very purpose of promotion etc.

Cannot Be Compelled To Work Against His Own Wish: Himachal Pradesh High Court Directs University To Issue NOC To Professor Seeking New Job.

Case Name: Dr. Ashok Garg v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: 10211 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla, to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a professor who had received a job offer from another institution.

Justice Sandeep Sharma: bonds executed by doctors, after their having done MBBS, medical courses, etc., to serve the State are binding and can be enforced, but since petitioner herein has agreed to pay the entire bond money i.e. Rs.60,00,000/-, he cannot be compelled to work against his wishes.

Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Repeated Disobedience And Non-Adherence To Orders, Justifiable; Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Dr. S.D. Sankhayan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWPOA No.734 of 2019

Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a professor at a government university, stating that repeated disobedience of orders from superiors can't be taken lightly, as it promotes indiscipline and disorder.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “The repeated insubordination by the non-adherence to the orders of superiors, cannot be brushed aside lightly for it will inculcate indiscipline and disorderliness in a public institution like respondent- University”.

Daily Wage Workers With 8+ Years Service Eligible For Pension Even If Total Service Falls Short Of 10 Years: HP HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:6748-DB | Bhima Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors.

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya granted pension benefits to a daily wage worker despite initial calculations showing less than the required qualifying service period. The court ruled that daily wage service, when followed by regularization, must be counted towards pension eligibility. The bench further held that workers having 8+ but less than 10 years of total service should be considered as satisfying the full 10 years of qualifying service.

Burden Lies On Employee To Justify Claim Under 'Equal Pay For Equal Work' Principle: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Surender Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWPOA No. 1720 of 2020

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when an employee seeks the benefit of principle of equal pay for equal work, it is their duty to submit relevant data to support the claim.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “In order to seek benefits of principle of equal pay for equal work again, the petitioner was required to justify his stand by producing the relevant data”

CCS Pension Rules | Withdrawal Of Premature Retirement Notice Permissible Before Effective Date: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Indira Daroch v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 3659 of 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that under Rule 43(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, an employee may withdraw a notice of premature retirement before it becomes effective, subject to the specific approval of the competent authority and upon giving valid reasons.

“Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, specifies that a government servant who has opted for voluntary retirement and has given the necessary notice to the appointing authority cannot withdraw their notice without the specific approval of that authority”.

Justice Sandeep Sharma: “Though a plea has been taken by the respondents that the premature retirement of the petitioner is governed by the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, which do not provide for withdrawal of a notice for retirement, but same also do not bar the appointing authority from reconsidering the matter on an application of employee for withdrawal of notice for premature retirement. Otherwise, this Court is of the view that rule 43(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is applicable here.”

Claim For Seniority Not Maintainable When Transfer Order Expressly Forfeits Prior Service: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Yashwant Mandhotra v/s Hon'ble High Court of HP & others

Case No.: CWP No.4241 of 2023

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a claim for seniority can't be sustained, where the terms of transfer clearly provide that previous service will not be counted for seniority purpose.

Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Once the condition provided that earlier seniority would be forfeited, the claim for seniority in future could not have been made. If such a course is provided it would amount to making ineligible's as eligible and the said post being filled up by a person who would not be eligible at the time of cut of date leading to heart burning”.

State's Delay In Creating Posts, Can't Deny Regularization Rights To Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Rajeev Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Others, Beli Ram V/s State of H.P. & Others, Arun Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others, Virender Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others, Ashok Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others

Case No.: CWPOA No. 6959 of 2020 a/w CWPOA Nos. 6963, 6966, 6967 and 6970 of 2020

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that State's delay in creating posts, can't defeat the contractual employees right to regularization once they fulfill the prescribed period of service under the State's regularization policy.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “Thus, had the posts been created within reasonable time, the petitioners would have been eligible for regularization even in terms of the communication dated 4.4.2013 as all of them have completed 6 years of service as on 31.3.2013”.

State Must Ensure Fair Promotions And Equal Treatment Of Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Dr. Swati Aggarwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors

Case No.: CWP No.5452 of 2020

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that government authorities must fill vacant posts in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules and must uphold fairness and equality in public employment.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “It is not expected from the executive of a welfare State to be partisan with one of its employees as against the other. Its role has to be of a model employer and a neutral umpire. Its legal obligation is to act in accordance with law”.

Teaching Experience Prior To Recognition Of Medical College Can't Be Counted Towards Eligibility : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name: Vijay Singh Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Case No.: LPA No. 40 of 2022 along with LPA No. 46 of 2022

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that teaching experience acquired before the formal recognition or establishment of a medical college under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, cannot be treated as valid for the purpose of determining eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, as per the statutory Recruitment Rules.

Pensionary Benefits For Contractual Period Before Regularization Must Include Annual Increments : Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case No. : CWP No. 14870/2024

A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, held that the direction to count the contractual service for pension requires the inclusion of annual increments for the relevant period in the pension calculation.

Govt Employee Who Acquires Benchmark Disability During Service Can Extend Retirement Age Even If Not Appointed Under PwD Quota: HP High Court

Case Name: Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 3374 of 2024

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who acquires benchmark disability during service is entitled to the benefit of extended retirement age under the State's policy, even if he was not appointed under the handicapped quota.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “Merely because a person suffers disability in service, offers no valid ground to discriminate him vis-a-vis the person, who was physically disabled and had been inducted into service under handicapped quota for purposes of fixing retirement age.”

State Can't Recover Overpaid Salaries After 5 Yrs, In Absence Of Misrepresentation From Workers: HP High Court Aids Class-III Workers

Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.

Case No.: LPA No. 457 of 2025 alongwith connected matters

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 36 LPAs filed by the state, holding that the recovery of overpaid salaries after 5 years cannot be made from class-III workers, when there was no misrepresentation on the part of the workers.

Upholding the finding of the Single bench, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma held that: “since the petitioners are Class-III employees and the recovery sought to be effected, pertains to the amount erroneously paid to them more than five years ago, the same is impermissible in law.”

CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 | Maternity Leave For Third Child Can't Be Denied If First Two Children Were Born Before Joining Service: HP High Court

Case Name: Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Case No.: CWP No. 10589 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that if two children of a government servant were born before joining government service and the third child is born after joining service, maternity leave under Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 can't be denied.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “petitioner herein had given birth to two children prior to her induction in service but her prayer to grant her maternity leave, though may be qua third child of her during service, came to be made for first time. If it is so, prayer made on her behalf for grant of maternity leave deserves to be allowed.

Candidate's Eligibility Is To Be Assessed Till Final Selection Is Made, Not Just On Last Application Submission Date: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name: Ashish Kumar Rana and another v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 4240 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“Court”) bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that when a candidate applies for any post, the eligibility is assessed till the final selection date and not just on the last date of submission of application.

Valid BPL Certificate Alone Sufficient For Award Of BPL Marks; Separate Income Certificate Not Mandatory : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name: Sahil Kumar v. HPSEBL and Others

Case No.: CWPOA No. 6529 of 2020

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that a valid BPL certificate issued by the competent authority is sufficient for awarding BPL marks in recruitment; requiring a separate income certificate is unjustified.

Candidate Can't Challenge A Post As Illegal & Claim Entitlement To Appointment On Same Post : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name : Deepak Pathania v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh and Anr

Case No. : 5254 of 2013

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that a candidate cannot claim appointment to a supernumerary post, especially when such post itself is challenged by the candidate as illegal.

Medical Reimbursement Can't Be Denied On Flimsy Grounds When Claim Is Admissible Under State Policy: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Ishwar Dass v/s State of HP & ors

Case No.: CWPOA No.6723 of 2020

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a medical reimbursement claim cannot be denied on flimsy or irrelevant grounds when it was admissible under the beneficial policy of the State Government.

A Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma held as follows;

“Once a medical claim is admissible in terms of beneficial policy of the State, the same should not be denied on flimsy grounds or irrelevant factors”.

Natural Justice Must Be Followed Even For Temporary Or Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case name: Surinder Kumar vs. Central Sanskrit University

Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:15013

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma set aside the suspension order of a data entry operator. The court ruled that a proper inquiry and show cause notice is mandatory before suspending an employee for misconduct. The court further clarified that natural justice principles must be followed even for temporary or contractual employees.

Lessee Falls Within Definition Of Occupier And Is Bound To Deposit EPF Contributions: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Vinod Kumar v/s State of H.P. & others

Case No.: Cr. MMO No.211 of 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a lessee who had control over the operations of a factory fell within the definition of "occupier" under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and was therefore legally bound to deduct and deposit Employees Provident Fund contributions into the statutory fund.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Therefore, the petitioner will fall within the definition of the occupier, and he, being an occupier, was bound to deduct the contribution and deposit the same into the statutory funds. Hence, the submission that the petitioner is not liable to deposit the contribution and the proceedings were wrongly initiated against him cannot be accepted.”

State Should Not Use Temporary Appointments To Escape Regularization And Avoid Responsibilities: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Hem Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Pritam Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Bhoop Singh V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Ranjeet Singh V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Surinder Kumar V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Naresh Kumar V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Partap Singh V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Rajesh Kumar V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Case No.: CWPOA No.s 5730 of 2020 and connected matters

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State and its functionaries can't use unfair practices to deny regularization to temporary employees who have completed required service years, stating that keeping employees in temporary posts to avoid granting them the benefits of regularization is exploitative and legally unjustified.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “State or its functionaries invariably are adopting exploitative method in the field of public employment to avoid its liabilities, depriving the persons employed from their just claims and benefits by making initial appointments on temporary basis, i.e. contract, adhoc, tenure, daily-wage etc., in order to shirk from its responsibility and delay the conferment of work-charge status or extension of benefits of regularization Policy of the State by not notifying Policies in this regard in future. Present case is also an example of such practice”.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Piece-Rate Workers Not Entitled To Pension Benefits Granted To Regular Staff: J&K High Court

Case No.: WP(C) No.642/2022 (Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors.)

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed petitions seeking pensionary benefits filed by former piece-rate workers of J&K Handicrafts Corporation. The court distinguished between piece-rate workers and regular employees, and held that workers paid based on daily output cannot claim parity with regular government employees for pension benefits.

Higher Salary Mistakenly Credited To Employee Cannot Be Recovered, But Employee Cannot Seek Continuation Of Erroneous Benefits: J&K High Court

Case-Title:- Sita Ram vs UT if J&K &Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 156

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that the claim of the petitioners to avail the benefit of a mistake of fact, despite the mistake having been detected and corrected, is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted.

The petitioners had argued that higher pay scale came to be granted to them without fraud or misrepresentation and therefore the respondent could not refix the salary in lower pay-scale or recover the same.

Accepting Lower Post Under Compulsion Doesn't Bar Legitimate Claims Due To Procedural Lapses In Selection Process: J&K High Court

Case-Title: IRSHAD RASHID SHAH vs UT OF J&K & OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 168

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held the petitioner's acceptance of the Constable post as against claim made for Sub-inspector on compassionate grounds did not negate his original claim because it was made after a prolonged struggle and under duress.

The petitioner whose father had died in counter-insurgency applied to be appointed as Sub-inspector under SRO 43 on compassionate grounds claiming that his case was not referred to General Administrative Department who was the competent authority to accept such plea.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Seniority Benefits For Rehbar-E-Taleem Teachers Prior To Regularization Of Services

Case-Title: Anwar Hussain Wani & Ors vs State of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 206

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that seniority of ReT (Rehbar-E-Taleem) teachers must be reckoned from the date of appointment as a general line teacher and the pre-regularization period of five years will not be included for the purpose of fixing seniority.

Compulsory Retirement Valid For Leaving Battalion Without Informing About New Address, Employer Cannot Launch 'Manhunt' For Employee: J&K HC

Case-Title: HC/GD Harish Chander vs UOI and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 139

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement from the service imposed upon the petitioner for his continuous absence from the battalion without permission for overstaying his leave for the period of 326 days.

The petitioner, a CRPF constable, contended that the order issued by respondent No.3 was based upon an ex parte inquiry and that the petitioner has not been provided an opportunity of hearing and whatever notice was sent by the authority could not be received as he had changed his residential address owing to his ailment.

Indian Army's Core Function Of National Security Is A Sovereign Function, Cannot Be Categorized As 'Industry': J&K High Court

Case-Title: General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Army does not fall within the definition of an 'Industry' and thus, the Labour Court, which had ruled in favor of the writ petitioners serving as porters in the Indian Army, ordered their reinstatement with full back wages, had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

The court said that it was not the case of the writ petitioners that their role as non-combat personnel providing porter services was severable from sovereign functions, to be classified as an industry.

Corporation Is An Independent Entity, Internal Service Rules Will Prevail Over Govt Office Memoranda: J&K High Court

Case-Title Rajesh Singh vs National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the writ Petition holding that Government office Memoranda will not prevail over the internal service rules relating to promotion unless these rules are specifically challenged before the court. It was held that an employee facing criminal charges would be barred from being considered for promotion until completely exonerated as per the said internal rules.

Officer's Inability To Stop Assailant Despite Being Armed Showed Incapability To Continue As Member Of CRPF: J&K HC Upholds Dismissal Order

Case-Title: Ex-CT/GD Om Prakash vs Union of India & ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

The J&K High Court has ruled that an army personnel's negligence in discharging their duties justifies the dismissal from the services, even if they are in the initial years of their service. It also held that the High Court cannot interfere with conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer under departmental proceedings unless the same is found to be fanciful and perverse.

The court observed that the Appellant's inability to stop or neutralize the assailant, despite being armed and in a position to do so, reveals that he was incapable of continuing as a member of the Armed Force in the Union, as he lacked the requisite resolve to act with decisiveness when faced with such adversity.

Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC

Case Title:Rattan Lal v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 120

High Court of J&K: A single judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the compulsory retirement of a BSF constable under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The court found the retirement to be justified based on the constable's repeated prior disciplinary infractions. The court also held that the BSF had followed all due process, including issuing a show-cause notice, and held that maintaining discipline in a paramilitary force was paramount. Judicial review, it clarified, does not extend to reassessing the sufficiency of material relied upon by the competent authority unless the decision is perverse or arbitrary.

Withdrawal Of Earlier Notification For Departmental Promotion & Issuing Fresh Notification Under Amended Rules Is Not Mala Fide: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Sanjeev Gupta vs Central University of Jammu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 213

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the university can issue a fresh notification for initiating the departmental promotions under amended rules pending the finalization of the process of promotion issued under the previous rules.

The above orders came while the court was hearing the challenge by the petitioner against the fresh notification issued by the respondent University requiring the departmental promotion, in which promotional test was already conducted, to be initiated under amended rules.

Policy Decision Restricting Pension Benefits To Employees Retiring After Particular Cut-Off Period Not Illegal: J&K High Court

Case-title: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs KHURSHEED AHMAD NAQEEB

Citation: 2025, Livelaw (JKL) 114

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that The employer is well within its rights to validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension scheme or for discontinuing an existing scheme and same is not violative of Article 14.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Justice Puneet Gupta said that government took a policy decision to introduce new pension scheme wherein the benefits was given to those who retired after 2014 and those who retired before the date and those who retired afterwards form two separate classes

SRO Benefits Wrongfully Granted To Employee Cannot Be Recovered By Withdrawing Amounts From Salary: J&K High Court

Case-Title: UT of J&K through its Commissioner vs Kashmiri Lal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 136

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if benefits under Self-Regulatory Organisation (SRO) scheme is wrongfully granted to the employee by the department without any fraud or misrepresentation played by the employee, the department is not at liberty to recover the same by effecting it from the salary of the employee or pensioner at any given point of time.

The Appellant department had discovered after going through the service book after the Respondent's retirement that he was incorrectly granted benefits under SRO 149 of 1973 that had been repealed and started to recover the same from his salary.

Two Decades Of Continuous Services Doesn't Give Right Of Regularization Unless Formal Recruitment Process Is Followed: J&K High Court

Case-title: Farooq Ahmad Janda vs Union Of India, 2025

Citation: Livelaw JKL) 77

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that serving in a department for more than 20 years without following the due process of recruitment does not give the right to said employee to seek the regularization of services.

Recovery Of Excess Pension Due To Administrative Error Cannot Be Enforced Against Elderly Pensioners Or Widows: J&KHigh Court

Case-title: Smt. Sudershan Sharma vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 97

Giving relief to an elderly woman pensioner in whose account an excess amount of pension was credited, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if, due to an administrative error, an excess amount is credited to the accounts of elderly pensioners or widows which is withdrawn, the same cannot be recovered.

The court noted that the appellant is an elderly lady, 77 years of age, and a renal patient; as such, any harsh order of recovery in such extreme hardship would worsen her condition. Case-title: Smt. Sudershan Sharma vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 97

Employer Can Accept Resignation Letter On Same Day, Need Not Wait For Expiry Of Notice Period: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Bilal Ahmad Yatoo vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld the dismissal of a police constable holding that there was no bar in accepting the resignation on the same day on which it was tendered, rather than treat it as 'intention to resign' and wait for a two-month notice period to expire before accepting it.

Cannot Withhold Retirement Benefits For Crime Branch Clearance: J&K HC

Case Title: Prem Kumar Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 236

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh: A single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that retirement benefits could not be withheld merely on the grounds of pending clearance from crime branch, especially when the FIR has been closed as 'not proved'. The court ruled that even when if the FIR investigations were pending, it does not amount to 'judicial proceedings', and thus, cannot be used to deny retirement benefits. Thus, the court directed the employer to provide all retirement benefits, along with interest.

Recording Adverse ACR Against Govt Employee During COVID Medical Leave Is Arbitrary: J&KL High Court Quashes Performance Report

Case-Title: Baseer -Ul- Haq Hussami Vs UT OF J&K & Ors , 2025

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed a “below average” Annual Confidential Report (ACR) recorded against a government employee for the year 2020, observing that the entry was made while the petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave due to COVID-19.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that such an adverse remark, made without any observable basis of work performance or misconduct during the reporting period, is not only legally untenable but also violative of principles of natural justice and administrative propriety.

Jharkhand High Court

Entitlement To ACP/MACP Benefits Is Based On Completion Of Qualifying Service, Not On Additional Qualifications: Jharkhand HC

Case Title : Rabindra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 41

The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen held that under the ACP/MACP Schemes, financial upgradation must be granted on completion of regular service without insisting on additional qualifications. Further the subsequent government resolutions cannot retrospectively affect accrued service benefits.

Temporary Employees Rendering Over 15 Years Of Continuous Service On Sanctioned Posts; Entitled To Pension Under Bihar Pension Rules : Jharkhand HC

Case Name : Surendra Nath Mahto & Ors vs State of Jharkhand & Ors

Case No. : W.P.(S) No. 136 of 2020

The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that temporary employees who have rendered over 15 years of continuous service on sanctioned posts with regular pay are entitled to pension under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (as adopted by State of Jharkhand).

Policy Changes Before Appointment Can't Be Challenged As No Vested Right Exists Prior To Issuance Of Appointment Letter : Jharkhand HC

Case Name: Faiyaz Ahmad & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Case No.: Civil Review No. 107 of 2024

A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava held that a candidate cannot challenge a policy change made prior to the appointment as no vested or accrued right arises from an advertised pay scale unless an appointment letter is issued.

Karnataka High Court

Company's Order Reversing Pay Hike Upsets Employee's Financial Planning: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside HAL Circular

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 31

Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild AND Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd & ANR

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a circular issued by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), whereby it sought to re-fix the pay of Officers, which came to be increased, in the year 2017.

A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by 'Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild' and set aside the Circular dated 24.07.2021, issued by the employer. It also clarified that the pay fixation (presently being paid) would continue to hold the field.

Employees Can Be Transferred On Administrative Exigency But Not In Violation Of Statue Or Operative Guidelines: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

Case Title: Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar AND The Chief Personnel Manager & ANR

The Karnataka High Court has said that administrative exigency can be a reason for a Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee from one place to another, but it cannot be done in violation of the statute or operative guidelines of service.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar questioning the endorsement issued to him by which he was transferred from Vigilance Department of the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation to the post of Depot Manager.

Penalty Of Withholding 100% Pension Gratuity By Disciplinary Authority Is Not Understandable: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

Case Title: Hanumanth N Karkun AND Honourable Minister of Finance & Others

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a 73-year-old, cancer patient and former employee of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, by setting aside an order of the authorities withholding 100 percent of gratuity and pension due to him.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Hanumanth N Karkun and quashed the order passed by the authorities and directed the release of the entire pension that was withheld and the gratuity that was forfeited to its full, to be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks.

Leave Encashment Is A Constitutional Property Right; It Cannot Be Denied Without Specific Statutory Authority: Karnataka HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:3366 | G. Linganagouda v. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank

Karnataka High Court: A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna declared that an employee dismissed from service is entitled to leave encashment, as it constitutes a property right under Article 300A of the Constitution. The court held that the Karnataka Gramina Bank refusing to pay leave encashment to a dismissed employee was illegal. It emphasized that once earned, terminal benefits including leave encashment become the employee's property. Thus, they cannot be withheld arbitrarily. Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the bank to encash the petitioner's privilege leave.

Daily Wage Employee Continuously Serving For Over 10 Years In Sanctioned Post Is Entitled To Regularization, Procedural Irregularities Can't Be Grounds For Denial: Karnataka HC

Case Name : P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors

Case No. : WP 6238/2020

A Division bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar held that a daily wage employee continuously serving for over ten years in a sanctioned post is entitled to regularization, and procedural irregularities or delay cannot be sole grounds for denial

Flawless Communication' Is Key: Karnataka HC Rejects Plea Of Man With Speech Disorder Denied Appointment As Asst Railway Loco Pilot

Case Title: Rishi Kumar AND Union of India & Others

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petition filed by a Railway Job Aspirant who was not appointed to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) as he was found to be stuttering speech by the Railway Recruitment Board which termed it as a speech disorder.

A division bench of Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice T M Nadaf dismissed the petition filed by one Rishi Kumar against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting his application seeking to quash the order passed by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) on the ground that the candidate suffered from speech disorder.

"Worked For 34 Yrs, State Wants To Play With His Life": Karnataka HC Directs Release Of Terminal Benefits For 70-Yr-Old Retired Teacher

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 103

Case Title: M.A.DHAVALESHWAR AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a retired school teacher who has been fighting for his pension for the last 6 years. The court has directed the State Government and Rani Channamma University to release complete Death-cum-retirement benefits and encashment of privilege leave, including arrears of pension as claimed, within four weeks.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M.A Dhavaleshwar and said, “It is un-understandable as to why the petitioner, despite working for 34 years, has not been paid complete pension as also leave encashment and gratuity amounts. The State wants to play with the life of the petitioner.”

Karnataka High Court Directs Regularisation Of Mangalore Workers Serving Through Outsource Agency Subsequent To Order Abolishing Contract Labour

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

Case Title: Bhagwan Das & Others AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of 16 contract workers employed in the water supply department of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike, and it has directed the corporation to regularise their services.

Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by Bhagwan Das and others and said “The order of regularization is to be passed within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

Gratuity Cannot Be Forfeited For Employee Who Was Dismissed For Allegedly Misappropriating Funds Without Proper Proceedings: Karnataka HC

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 19.

Case Title: Central Warehousing Corporation AND G C Bhat & ANR

The Karnataka High Court has held that in case no proceedings have been initiated against a delinquent employee for recovery of the alleged losses caused to the public institution due to their misappropriation, the question of the employer retaining the gratuity amount of the dismissed employee and forfeiting the same, would not arise.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Central Warehousing Corporation, which had challenged the order of the Controlling Authority. The authority while allowing the application filed by G C Bhat had directed the corporation to pay him a gratuity amount of Rs.7,88,165 with 10% interest from 12.12.2013, till the date of actual payment.

Conviction For 'Petty Offence' Not Enough: Karnataka High Court Gives Relief To Peon Whose Appointment Offer Was Cancelled By Sessions Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

Case Title: Chief Administrative Officer & ANR AND Mallappa Basappa Sajjan

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order which had set aside a communication issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kollar cancelling the offer of appointment to the post of 'Peon' in the Judicial Department of Kolar District.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the appeal filed by the Chief Administrative Office, of the Principal District and Sessions court, and said: “We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that conviction for a petty offence would not be a ground for cancelling the offer of appointment. It is also well-settled that non-disclosure of a conviction for petty offence, does not necessarily provide sufficient ground for cancellation of an appointment.”

Govt Can't Pass Interim Order Directing Payment Of Wages To Workmen Without Hearing Management, Workers Union: Karnataka HC

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16742 OF 2024

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the government cannot pass an interim order directing payment of wages in favour of workmen of a company without hearing the company management and the workers union.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held thus while allowing a petition filed by the Management of Mahindra Aerostructures Private Limited, challenging a June 11, 2024 order passed by Principal Secretary/Deputy Special Officer, Child Labour Cell To Department Of Labour, directing payment of Rs.6,000 per month as interim wages in favour of the workman of the petitioner/Management.

Pre-University Education Rules | Denying Compassionate Appointment For Want Of Vacancy In Deceased's Institution Illegal: Karnataka High Court

Case Name- Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264

The Karnataka High Court set aside an order passed by Pre-University Education department which had rejected a compassionate appointment plea filed by the son of a deceased employee of a Pre-University solely on the ground that there was no vacancy in the institution where the deceased was working.

In doing so the court held that the rejection was in contravention to the state Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration, Grant-in-aid etc.) (Amendment) Rules, and the respondent-authority must strictly follow the rules while deciding such a plea.

Allowing the plea filed by Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar Justice Suraj Govindaraj perused Clause 1(a) and (b) 2010 Rules and said that the same indicated that the compassionate appointment is firstly required to be made in the private aided educational institutions imparting Pre-university Education where the deceased employee has worked.

Compassionate Appointment Applications Must Be Decided Within 90-Days: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel

The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities concerned to decide applications received for Compassionate Appointment within a maximum period of 90 days, from date of receipt of the application.

A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz And Justice K S Hemalekha said, “Compassionate appointment matters being a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families, the State bears a high duty of procedural fairness."

Kerala High Court

ESI's Refusal To Reimburse Medical Expenses On Minor Technical Grounds Arbitrary: Kerala HC

Case Title: Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. The State Medical Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Honourable Mr. Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court ruled against the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) in a medical reimbursement case. The court held that ESIC's refusal to reimburse expenses for an emergency liver transplantation on grounds such as non-submission of an 'emergency certificate' was hyper-technical and arbitrary. It ruled that once the factum of treatment is established and supported by certified records, reimbursement cannot be denied for minor procedural technicalities. Thus, it directed reimbursement within 60 days.

Illegal Termination Entitles Employee To Full Back Wages Unless Employer Proves Alternative Employment During Suspension: Kerala HC

Case Title: The Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. T.M. George

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an appeal by the Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The bench upheld an Arbitration Court's order to pay full back wages to a former employee. The court held that employers bear the burden of proving that the employee was gainfully employed during his suspension period. In the absence of such proof, the court ruled that illegally terminated employees are entitled to full compensation.

Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Case Title: Nitheesh K. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 217

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the compulsory retirement of a Railway employee. As the only misconduct was unauthorized absence for three days during the pandemic, the court found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate. The court directed his immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and ruled that his absence should be treated as casual leave in accordance with government COVID-related office memorandums.

Appellate Authority Must Consider Prior Judicial Observations When Reconsidering Disciplinary Action: Kerala HC

Case Title: Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Benny Mathew

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 220

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed writ appeals challenging an order that remanded a disciplinary case back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The court held that an Appellate Authority must properly consider prior judicial observations when reconsidering disciplinary action and cannot simply adopt a judicial review approach. The court held that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings; it requires the Appellate Authority to address the case on merits rather than limiting itself to procedural review.

EPS Pension | EPFO Cannot Deny Higher Pension On The Ground That Contributions Were Paid In Bulk: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Gopinathan Pillai M. & Others v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 234

The Kerala High Court held that the Employee Provident Fund Organisation, after having received a contribution to the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS) based on the actual salary, cannot deny the employees a higher pension saying that the contributions were not made in the corresponding month.

Justice Murali Purushothaman ordered so in a petition filed by employees who retired from Milma. On retirement, the EPFO denied pension on actual salary to these employees saying that during some period the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (TCMPU) of MILMA contributed based on the statutory limit. However, TCMPU had made bulk payments to EPFO to make up for the balance amount along with the interest.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Illegal Termination, Daily Wage Workers Entitled To Reinstatement With 50% Back Wages : MP HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:9151 | The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Gautam

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Vishal Mishra upheld a Labour Court's award that reinstated a daily wage worker with 50% back wages, after finding his termination violated the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act). The court rejected the State's contention that reinstatement should not be granted as a routine remedy. It affirmed that when services are terminated without following the ID Act, reinstatement with back wages remains the normal rule.

MP High Court Clarifies Distinction Between Original And Absorbed Janpad Panchayat Employees For Pension Eligibility

Case No.: W.A. No. 752 of 2020 | Ganesh Ram Kahar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait (Chief Justice) and Vivek Jain dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order. The court ruled that a Janpad Panchayat employee who failed to establish his absorption from the previous Janpad Sabha is not entitled to pension benefits. The court held that only employees of Janpad Sabha absorbed into Janpad Panchayat after the 1962 MP Panchayats Act would have pension rights, while original Janpad Panchayat employees were entitled only to Contributory Provident Fund.

Governor Can't Punish Guilty Govt Official By Dismissal Under Rules, Can Only Withhold/Withdraw Pension For Misconduct: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: Nausad Qureshi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 9268 Of 2014

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 34

While setting aside a dismissal order of a retired government official, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded that under the state civil service pension rules the Governor can only withhold or withdraw the officer's pension for grave misconduct/negligence but cannot impose punishment of dismissal.

Violation Of Service Rules Not Violation Of Public Function, Action Against Private Employee Not Amenable Under Article 226: MP High Court

Case Title: Vikram Singh versus Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 935 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 20

The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions.

In doing so, the court opined that the impugned action must relate to a 'public duty' in order to come under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed, “The right to continue in service cannot be held to be a fundamental right. The service conditions of an employee is governed by the Service rules and violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions and, therefore, any action taken by a private institution against his employee would not come within the judicial scrutiny of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Once Selection Process Culminates Into Document Verification, It Shouldn't Be Cancelled Citing Technical Infirmity: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: Ms. Kritika Mandloi And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 12082 Of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 11

The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that once any selection process for a job post is culminated into the process of document verification after selection of candidates, it should not be cancelled citing technical infirmities in the original advertisement.

MP HC Grants Reinstatement With 50% Back Wages, As Termination Violated Section 25(F), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:9767

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke set aside a labour court award of 2017, that had denied a worker full back wages. The court held that the worker's termination was illegal, as it violated Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act'). Relying on an earlier case from the same court, the High Court directed the worker's reinstatement with 50 % back wages and other consequential benefits.

Irregularly Appointed Staff, If Confirmed, Can't Be Terminated Arbitrarily: MP High Court

Case No.: W.A. 1610 of 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A division bench consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Chief Justice Vivek Jain, reinstated a university employee terminated after over 25 years of service. The court ruled that his appointment was merely irregular and not illegal, and that subsequent confirmation of service had regularised his post. The court held that confirmed employees cannot be terminated without proper inquiry, notwithstanding if the initial appointment was irregular.

Teachers Absorbed Into State Service From Panchayats Are Entitled To Gratuity Under Payment Of Gratuity Act: MP HC

Case No. W.P. No. 31272/2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by the state of Madhya pradesh. The petition challenged an order that granted gratuity to teachers, who were absorbed into State service. The court upheld that the teachers absorbed into state service from panchayats are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and that the service period before their absorption must be counted towards gratuity calculation.

Rights Already Accrued Cannot Be Taken Away Through Subsequent Amendments Having No Retrospective Effect: MP HC

Case No. W.P. No. 13847 of 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi held that the Academic Grade Pay (AGP) benefits once granted, cannot be taken away by subsequent amendments that only have prospective effect. The court explained that the new AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) Regulation, 2016, cannot be used to withdraw AGP benefits granted under the AICTE Regulation, 2010. Thus, the court directed the state to restore all benefits with 8% interest.

Reinstatement Not Automatic Remedy For Illegal Termination, Court Awards Lumpsum Compensation; MP HC

Case No.: Misc. Petition No.4540 of 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke denied reinstatement to a contractual employee who worked for the Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran (MPMKVV). The court explained that reinstatement is not the automatic consequence of illegal termination, especially if it involved a daily wage or contractual worker.

Experience Gained By Discharging Duties 'For A Long' Time Is Enough To Hold That Employee Is Qualified For Post: MP High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Ram Dayal Yadav Versus State of M.P. And Others, Writ Petition No.17607 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 29

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that experience gained by discharging duties for a long period of time is sufficient to hold that an employee has the requisite qualifications.

In doing so, Justice Sanjay Dwivedi allowed a man's plea who was terminated from service as a Driver noting that apart from him not having the required educational qualification there were no other lacunae shown by the authority showing any deficiency in his driving. It thereby termed his dismissal as unjust.

Madras High Court

Re-Employment Of Faculty Retiring Mid-Academic Year Is Mandatory, But Disciplinary Proceedings & 'No Work, No Pay' Deny It : Madras HC

Case Name : Dr. R. Mathivanan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 140

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima held that the re-employment of faculty retiring mid-academic year is mandatory, but if there are pending disciplinary proceedings and further the 'no work, no pay' principle applies, then the re-employment is not allowed.

Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Pass Injunctive Relief In Industrial Disputes: Madras HC

Case Title: M. Nagappan v. The Management

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5

Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed a civil revision petition against a District Munsif's order that refused to pass an injunction against TAW Footwear Division. The Munsif had rejected the plaint holding that the matter was an industrial dispute and fell exclusively within the Labour Court's jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that civil courts have jurisdiction over matters not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. Following Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantharam Wadke, it held that since the labour courts were not empowered to grant interim injunctions under the Industrial Disputes Act, civil courts are the appropriate forum.

Terminated Temporary Workers Given Right To Apply In Future Recruitment Processes Along With Age Relaxation: Madras HC

Case Title: M. Maheshwaran and others v. The Chairman & Managing Director and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163

Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shamim Ahmed held that seasonal workers whose engagement was cancelled due to procedural irregularities, should not be punished for faults of the selection committee. The court ruled that while such temporary workers could not be reinstated, they must be permitted to participate in future recruitment processes, along with appropriate age relaxation.

Manipur High Court

Similarly Situated Employees Under Same Employer Must Be Treated Equally: Manipur HC

Case No. WP(C) No. 500 of 2018

High Court of Manipur: A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma directed the State of Manipur to absorb two Assistant Project Officers (APOs) as Project Officers (POs) in its Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. This rectified their initial absorption into a lower post. Considering the employees' prior promotion, the court held that their subsequent absorption into a lower post was discriminatory compared to other similarly situated employees of the District Rural Development Agency.

Meghalaya High Court

Employee's Plea For D.O.B. Correction At Fag End Of Service: Meghalaya HC Rejects Citing Inordinate Delay

Case Name : Smti. Martinewbell Suchiang vs. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case No. : WP(C) No. 46 of 2025

The Meghalaya High Court bench comprising Justice H. S. Thangkhiew held that correction of date of birth in service records cannot be permitted at the fag end of service, even if supporting documents exist. Further as per Note to SR 8 of the Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules of Meghalaya, correction in date of birth is allowed only in rare cases of manifest error, and must be done at the earliest, preferably during periodic reattestation.

Orissa High Court

Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Held Pending Criminal Trial Unless Accused Is Prejudiced: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 7349 of 2025

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously against a delinquent employee and there is no need to keep the disciplinary actions in standby until the conclusion of the criminal trial.

While ingeminating the position of law, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held, “It is, expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible and the authority needs not to await the outcome of the decision of the investigating/prosecuting agency or Court trial.”

Orissa High Court Denies Claim For Regularization Of Previous Service Due To Extended Delay In Filing

Case Name : Tapaswini Acharya v. State of Odisha & others

Case No. : W.P.(C) No13837 of 2013

The Orissa High Court bench comprising of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that claim for regularization of service can be denied due to an extended delay in filing, coupled with the petitioner's subsequent employment in another institution.

Employee Has No Vested Right To Choose Place Of Posting & Designation: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Kishore Biswal v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 30756 of 2024

The Orissa High Court has recently reiterated that an employee has no vested right to choose his place of posting or designation and it is only the prerogative of the employer to decide the same keeping the public interest and larger exigency in view.

Patna High Court

'Recovery Of Excess Amount From Retired Employee For Period More Than Five Years Before Order Of Recovery Is Impermissible', Patna High Court

Case Title: Kamlesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 4

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justice Arvind Singh Chandel allowed a Petition challenging an Order of Recovery from a Retired Clerk who was paid an excess amount due to alleged wrong pay fixation. The Court reiterated that the recovery of excess amount paid by mistake is not permissible in cases where the recovery is made in case of employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service and also in cases where the Recovery is sought for the excess amount received by Employees for a period more than five years before the order of recovery is issued.

Re-evaluation Is Not Permissible In Cases Where Authorities Have Ensured Clarity', Patna High Court

Case Title: Bihar Public Service Commission versus Dr. Eena Bahan & Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 5

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia while setting aside a judgment of a Single Judge directing re-evaluation held that in cases related to re-evaluation, the court may permit such re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is committed. The Bench observed that in cases where proper care has been taken the authorities to ensure fair treatment and justice and the same is proven in the Court, re-evaluation may not be directed.

For Mere Unauthorised Absence, Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Too Harsh: Patna HC

Case Title: Deo Narayan Singh vs The Union Of India

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 51

Patna High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Purnendu Singh quashed an order that imposed compulsory retirement on a CISF constable for allegedly misbehaving at work. The court held that the punishment was disproportionate, and further directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose a lesser punishment. The court explained that a disproportionate penalty attracts Article 21 of the Constitution, and if the punishment is unreasonable, it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Pay Verification Cell Cannot Unilaterally Override University's Pay Fixation Of Employees: Patna HC

Case Title: Smt. Kanchan Sah vs The State of Bihar and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 19

Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar ruled that the Pay Verification Cell under the Education Department cannot unilaterally override pay fixation decisions made by a university's statutory committee. The court held that objections from the Pay Verification Cell should be treated as audit objections; they require the university to notify affected employees and seek their responses before any action is taken. The court ruled that the final decision on pay fixation must come from the university, as the Pay Verification Cell lacks any jurisdiction in this regard.

Education Department's 2013 Resolution Binding; Retrenchment Period Must Be Counted For Pension Calculation: Patna HC

Case Title: Arun Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar and And

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 55

Patna High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Harish Kumar held that for a former Adult Education Project Employee who was later absorbed into the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), retrenchment periods must be counted for pension calculation. Relying on a 2013 Resolution of the Education Department, the court held that retrenchment period must be counted on a notional basis for pension benefits. Thus, the court directed the Accountant General to issue a fresh payment order, including the retrenchment period for pension calculation.

Termination Of Services Of Anganwadi Supervisor Without Following Procedure, Patna HC Revokes.

Case Title: Kiran Devi vs The State of Bihar and Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 1

A single judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that termination of Anganwadi Supervisor from the service without following the termination procedure under Clause XIV of the Pervekshika Niyojan Margdarshika is invalid.

Recovery Of Excess Pension Payments From Retired Class-III Employee Impermissible: Patna HC

Case Title: Pramod Kumar Sinha vs The Union of India and Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 2

Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench consisting Justice Purnendu Singh allowed a writ petition that challenged the recovery of excess pension payments made to a retired Central Industrial Security Force Sub-Inspector. Following State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the court ruled that recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees is impermissible when the error is administrative and not due to employee misrepresentation. Thus, the court ordered restoration of full pensionary benefits without any deductions.

Fresh Disciplinary Enquiry After Submission Of Enquiry Report Impermissible: Patna HC

Case Title: Praduman Kumar Prasad vs The State of Bihar and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 20

Patna High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel set aside an order for fresh disciplinary enquiry against a government servant, finding it impermissible under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The court held that after submission of an enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has limited options and cannot start a de novo enquiry. The court directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order within two weeks.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Disabled During Service, Employee Entitled To Continued Salary, Benefits & Supernumerary Post, Along With Interests : Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name : Narinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Case No. : CWP-2543-2025 (O & M)

The Punjab & Haryana High Court bench comprising of Justice Aman Chaudhary held that employees who acquire disability during service are entitled to continued salary, benefits, and a supernumerary post along with interest on withheld dues.

Service-Related Disability Entitles Armed Forces Personnel To Full Pension Benefits; Meeting Qualifying Period Not Mandatory: P&H HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:003621-DB | Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Sep Sukhdev Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma upheld an Armed Forces Tribunal's decision regarding the disability pension for an ex-serviceman. The court ruled that disabilities attributable to or aggravated by service entitles a serviceman to both the disability and service elements of the pension. It noted that this applies even if the serviceman has not completed the minimum qualifying service period.

Entitlement To Selection Grade Is Based On Sanctioned Cadre Strength, Not Actual Number Of Occupied Posts: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Name: Haryana State Electricity Board And Anr. V. Sat Narain And Others

Case No. : RSA-2488-2000 (O&M)

The Punjab & Haryana High Court bench comprising of Justice Deepak Gupta held that the entitlement to Selection Grade is based on the sanctioned cadre strength and not on the actual number of posts occupied.

Differentiating Employees For Transfer On Age Basis Reasonable; Elder Ones Have Family Responsibility, Health Issues: Punjab & Haryana HC

Title: Gaurav Wadhwa and others v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 102

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Online Transfer Policy, 2023 of Haryana Government for State Agriculture Marketing Board, challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution on various grounds including that the elderly employees are given preference for favourable transfers.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "The respondent has formed an opinion that employees with higher age should be given preference. They certainly have better experience but more family responsibilities and health issues. This classification is not going to affect young employees because at later stage of their life, they are also going to be benefited."

Dependents Of Missing Employee, Entitled To Ex-Gratia Compensation After Seven Years Of Employee's Disappearance: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Name : Bhupinder Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others

Case No. : CWP No. 5072 of 1999 (O&M)

The Punjab & Haryana High Court bench comprising of Justice Jagmohan Bansal held that dependents of a missing employee are entitled to ex-gratia compensation after seven years of the employee's disappearance.

Land Transfer During Amalgamation Doesn't Create Statutory Rights For Retrenched Workers Under Industrial Disputes Act: P&H HC

Case No.: LPA-2872-2024, Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation Workers' Union Ludhiana v. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd & Ors.

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur dismissed 12 appeals challenging an order that had denied the reinstatement of the workers of a closed corporation. The court held that contractual workers appointed for a short duration following a failed amalgamation scheme, cannot claim reinstatement rights under the Industrial Disputes Act. It clarified that once retrenchment compensation is paid, workers have no further claims on the assets transferred during amalgamation.

Ministry Policy Cannot Override Supreme Court Precedents On Defence Security Corps Pension Condonation: P&H High Court

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:003625-DB | Union of India and Others v. Ex-Nk Tarsem Tarsem Singh and Another

Punjab & Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepthi Sharma dismissed a writ petition that challenged an Armed Forces Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had condoned a shortfall of 343 days and granted service pension to a DSC serviceman. The Court held that Union of India v. Surender Singh Parmar (2015) permits condonation of service shortfalls up to one year when the personnel has served for at least 14 years. Further, the Court ruled that a 2017 Ministry of Defence circular prohibiting condonation for second pensions could not override established Supreme Court precedents.

Dismissed Police Officer Not Entitled To Pension Despite Long Service: P&H HC

Neutral Citation No: 2025:PHHC:025452 | Malook Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed a petition seeking pensionary benefits for a dismissed police officer. The court held that under Punjab Civil Services Rules and Punjab Police Rules, an employee dismissed from service is not entitled to pension regardless of length of service. The court clarified that Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Services Rules explicitly bars pension for dismissed employees, though compassionate allowance may be considered in special circumstances. It ruled that granting pension despite dismissal would render dismissal orders meaningless.

Resignation Of Employee Can't Be Accepted Retrospectively If It Is Withdrawn Before Acceptance: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Title: B.B. Gupta v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 125

The Punjab & Haryana High Court made it clear that resignation of an employee cannot be accepted retrospectively if the resignation is withdrawn before the acceptance.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said, "Once, a resignation which is sought to be accepted had already been withdrawn by the petitioner, there was no jurisdiction with the authority concerned to accept the same with retrospective effect so as to over come the withdrawal of the resignation by the employee concerned."

Transfer Policies Are Administrative Guidelines, Not Enforceable Rights; Voluntary Retirement Can't Be Withdrawn After Acceptance: P&H HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:025485

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed writ petitions filed by Babita Kaushal against Punjab Gramin Bank. The court held that transfer policies are merely administrative guidelines and do not create enforceable rights. It ruled that once an employee opts for voluntary retirement, they cannot withdraw the request after it's accepted by the competent authority; particularly when such withdrawal is not approved under the applicable regulations.

Dismissal From Service Bars Pensionary Benefits Under Punjab Civil Services Rules: Punjab & Haryana HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:025452 | Malook Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed a petition that sought pensionary benefits for a dismissed Punjab Police officer. The court affirmed that dismissal from service revokes pension rights under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It held that pension is only available to those permitted to retire, and granting pension despite dismissal would make the disciplinary proceedings meaningless. The court clarified that while a dismissed employee may seek a compassionate allowance under exceptional circumstances, pension can only be sought on retirement and not dismissal.

Rajasthan High Court

Composite Enquiry Against Mulitple Delinquent Employees Possible Only If They Have Common Disciplinary Authority: Rajasthan HC

Title: Shri Manish Kumar Balwani & Ors. v Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in cases where there was more than one delinquent employee with similar or common charges, composite disciplinary proceedings could take place against them only if the competent and disciplinary authorities of all such delinquent employees were the same.

In case such authorities were different for all employees, the jurisdiction of one could not be snatched by another.

Abandoning Duty Without Prior Sanction Is Not 'Deemed Resignation', Must Be Dealt As Indiscipline Under Civil Services Rules: Rajasthan HC

Title: Anil Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

Rajasthan High Court partly allowed a plea challenging an order under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules as per which a government college teacher was “deemed to have resigned”, stating that though show cause notice issued to him was correct, his act of not reporting back on duty could not be deemed as a resignation.

The court said that though Rule 86 was not applicable however as the petitioner remained absent without even applying for any leave or permission, in such cases indiscipline of the Government servant has to be appropriately dealt with in accordance with law under Rule 17 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules) for willful absence from duty.

Suspension Order & Charge Sheet Issued On Holiday Not Invalid, Govt Functions 24 Hrs A Day, 7 Days A Week: Rajasthan HC

Title: Indra Dudi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 157

While rejecting a petition challenging a suspension order and charge sheet issued to the Pradhan of a Panchayati Samiti, Rajasthan High Court held that charge-sheet and the suspension order could not be considered as void or invalid on the mere ground that the two were issued on a holiday.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said that government servants were not barred from working on holidays to discharge their normal official duties. It was opined that the object of working on a holiday was to reduce the workload, and there was no prohibition in law for performance of any official work on a holiday. It was said:

"There is no force in the argument of the petitioner that the impugned charge-sheet and suspension order was passed on holiday i.e. on 12.10.2024. This cannot be treated as an illegality on the part of the Government. The Government Servants, who work 24 X 7 if necessary and required, are not barred from working on holidays and discharge their normal official duties. Consequently, any order passed by them, in the course of discharge of their normal duty cannot and should not be treated as invalid. There may be more workload on the Government Officers and therefore, they had to work even on the holidays. But that does not mean that such a holiday shall be presumed as a working day like any other normal day. As such, the object of working on the holiday, is merely to reduce the workload. There is no prohibition in law for performance of any official work on a holiday and if any order is passed on any holiday, the same cannot be treated as void and invalid. The Government functions 24 hours a day for seven days a week. The charge-sheet and suspension order cannot be quashed only on this count that the same was issued on a holiday"

Rajasthan High Court Orders State To Regularize Eligible Employees Appointed As Far Back As In 1979, Give Benefits To Irregular Appointees

Title: Giriraj Prasad Sharma v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 164

Observing that in a welfare State prolonged denial of regularization despite continuous service for decades borders on institutional exploitation, the Rajasthan High Court passed a slew of directions to the State government in respect of various employees appointed as far back as 1979 whose initial appointments were irregular or illegal, but who had completed long years of service.

Justice Arun Monga held that constitutional morality warranted that appointments irregular in form but not in substance, backed by sanctioned posts and years of continuous service, should not remain at the mercy of procedural regularity.

26 Yrs On, Rajasthan HC Laments Plight Of Meritorious Visually Impaired Man Denied State Service Cadre For Not Fitting State's Check-Boxes

Title: Dr. Deva Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 154

After over 2 decades, Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a visually impaired candidate who, despite being meritorious in the Examination, was not appointed under Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) but under State Accounts Service.

This was because the State had not considered him disabled enough for reservation under disabled category and he was also not considered medically fit under the general category either.

Transfer From CMO To Hospital's Deputy Controller A Reduction In Rank, Amounts To Deputation For Which Consent Is Needed: Rajasthan HC

Title: Dr. Shankar Lal Bamania v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

The Rajasthan High Court quashed an order where a government employee serving as Chief Medical and Health Officer (CM&HO) Udaipur was transferred as Deputy Controller of District Hospital, Pratapgarh observing that it amounted to deputation for which the employee's consent is mandatory which was missing herein.

In doing so the court set aside the single judge's order which had upheld the transfer order, observing that the single judge had been "misled" by respondent authorities who did not produce the relevant amended Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, wherein Deputy Controller of Hospitals was no longer found in the cadre list.

Rajasthan Service Rules | High Court Lays Down Guidelines For Issuing 'Awaiting Posting Orders', Says Reasons Must Be Conveyed To Employees

Title: Ganraj Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 166

While hearing a bunch of petitions by government employees who were put under the category of “Awaiting Posting Orders” without assigning or conveying any reasons, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court issued the following guidelines:

1) Purpose and Justification of APOs

a. To be issued based on administrative necessity or public interest and not as a punitive measure.

b. Reason for placing an employee under APO to be explicitly stated in writing.

c. APO not to be used as a substitute or ruse for disciplinary action.

2) Conditions for issuing APO

a. APOs usually to be passed under the circumstances enumerated in Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (“the Rules”).

b. Circumstances mentioned in Rule 25-A are illustrative, but any other condition proposed to be invoked must align with similar administrative necessity.

3) Limitation and Restrictions

a. APOs cannot be used to circumvent Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, which governs suspension.

b. APOs should not exceed 30 days unless approved by the Finance Department with valid justification.

c. Prolonged APO Status without proper cause is misuse of authority.

4) Administrative Accountability

a. Reason for APO order to the concerned employee/official must be conveyed.

b. Ensuring timely issuance of future posting orders to prevent unnecessary financial burden on the government.

c. APO orders that amount to de facto suspension or serve as a means to delay the proposed disciplinary action to be avoided.

Prolonged Suspension From Service Mirrors Penalty: Rajasthan HC Directs State To Ensure 'Reasonable Timeline' For Further Action, Lays Guidelines

Title: Naru Lal Meghwal v the State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that even though suspension is though legally not a penalty but an interim measure, however when dragged for a prolonged period mirrors punishment or “disguised” punishment.

In doing so the court issued a mandamus to the State of Rajasthan–through Secretary, Department of Personnel, to ensure that all "competent authorities vested with the power to suspend government servants adhere to a reasonable timeline for taking further action following a suspension order passed due to pending criminal proceedings".

Industrial Disputes Act | Sundays And Other Paid Holidays Taken Into Account For Treating Continuous Service Of Workman: Rajasthan HC

Title: Lal Chand Jindal v Regional Manager

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 117

Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of the Central Industrial Tribunal (“CIT”) that did not taken into consideration Sundays and other paid holidays while calculating the service period of a Bank of Baroda employee.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon Section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (the “Act”) as well as the Supreme Court decision in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation (the “Case”) in which it was held that Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into account for treating continuous service of the workman.

Rajasthan High Court Orders State To Release Retiral Benefits Of Employee Who Was Granted Premature Voluntary Retirement

Title: Ram Niwas v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 70

The Rajasthan High Court has come to the rescue of a government employee who was denied retirement benefits after the State committed a mistake by accepting his voluntary retirement application, without his completing 15 years of prescribed qualifying service period.

For 20 Yrs He Was Sleeping': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Govt Employee's Plea Against 2002 Penalty Stopping Yearly Increments

Title: Sudershan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

Dismissing a government employee's plea challenging a penalty which stopped three annual grade increments as well as rejection of appeal and review petitions, the Rajasthan High Court observed that his plea was barred by delay of over two decades.

Circular To Recommend Candidate 45 Days Before Expiry Of Waiting List Not Meant To Curtail 6-Month Validity Period Of Wait List: Rajasthan HC

Title: Dr. Saroj Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 102

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the 45-day time period under Clause 11 of the Department of Personnel Circular dated April 5, 2021 (“Clause 11”), was not meant to curtail the validity of the waiting list to less than 6 months even when the recommendations from the waiting list were not made within the stipulated timeline.

Reflects State Officials' Adamancy To Not Let Go Of Administrative Superiority: Rajasthan HC Stays Transfer Of 1000 Panchayat Officers

Case Title: Ram Chander v the State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 47

While staying the transfer of over 1000 officials–where the elected Panchayat bodies were denied the opportunity to exercise their powers under law, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court said that it reflected the State officials' adamancy to not let go of their administrative superiority.

Absolute Bar On Withdrawal Of Voluntary Retirement Once Accepted 'Unfair': Rajasthan HC Reads Down Provision In Civil Service Pension Rules

Title: Bhikam Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 169

Reading down the proviso to Rule 50(4) of State Civil Services (Pension) Rules barring withdrawal from voluntary retirement once the application is accepted by the employer, the Rajasthan High Court said putting a complete embargo on an employee's choice to withdraw retirement plea even before it becomes effective renders the scheme suffering from manifest arbitrariness.

It further held that withdrawal of a voluntary retirement application cannot be rejected without application of mind.

Pay Minus Pension' Can't Be Retrospectively Recovered From Retd Doctors Due To AIIMS Jodhpur's Ignorant Attitude: Rajasthan High Court

Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Anr. v Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 203

In pleas by retired doctors “re-employed” by AIIMS Jodhpur against imposition “Pay minus pension” rule five years after their appointment orders were issued without such condition, the Rajasthan High Court slammed the hospital for being ignorant about the law applicable upon its employees.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by certain doctors as well as AIIMS Jodhpur against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which ruled that the petitioners shall fall under the category of “re-employed” persons. However, since there was no such condition mentioned in their appointment orders, it was not legally permissible for AIIMS to deduct the pension from the pay with retrospective effect.

[Compassionate Appointment] Law Prevailing On Date Of Employee's Death Applicable Irrespective Of When Application For Appointment Was Submitted: Rajasthan HC

Title: Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Mukesh Kumar Berwa

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 88

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief of compassionate appointment, in a decade-old matter, to the petitioner, affirming that the policy governing such appointment had to be the one that was existing on the date of demise of the concerned person and not on the date of application filed for such appointment.

The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati was hearing a special appeal filed by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) against the decision of a single judge that had directed the appellants to consider the respondent for compassionate appointment.

Man In Uniform' Being Unauthorizedly Absent From Duty, Sending False Information About His Death Is Gross Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Satya Narayan v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 93

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF Constable who wilfully remained absent from duty for 65 days beyond the sanctioned leave without any intimation to the authorities and when notice was issued to join back on duty he sent incorrect information of him passing away.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:

"This Court is of the considered opinion that a man in uniform must maintain greater discipline and the act of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty is the gravest act of misconduct. Remaining absent from duty, after expiry of sanctioned leaves by a person, belonging to a disciplined force, is fatal".

Recognized Institution Bound By Mandate On Removal Of Employees Under Non-Govt Educational Institutions Act: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Abdul Rahim v the Managing Committee & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 190

The Rajasthan High Court has said that if any part of an institution was receiving a grant, then the entire institution shall be treated as aided and even if the grant was not received for a particular post, employees on such posts are entitled to protection from removal under State Non-Government Educational Institutions Act and relevant rules.

Justice Anand Sharma further opined that irrespective of receiving any aid, a recognized institution could not be absolved from the mandate of Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act that laid down procedure for removal, dismissal and reduction in rank of employees.

State Can't Invoke Bond Condition In Earlier Appointment After Employee Is Issued Fresh Appointment Letter: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Leela Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 181

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that once an employee was provided a fresh appointment letter, she could not be bound by the condition of bond prescribed in her earlier appointment letter or the rules governing such appointment.

Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a writ petition filed against a direction from the State directing recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner on account of breach of bond on her part as she got transferred from being a “Community Health Officer” to a “Nursing Officer”.

Rajasthan High Court Issues Guidelines On Suspension Of Govt Employees Where Disciplinary Proceedings Are Contemplated, Pending

Title: Naresh Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 116

The Rajasthan High Court issued guidelines to be followed by competent authorities/State's head of departments in cases where delinquent employees were suspended either in contemplation of or pending departmental proceedings under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules.

Justice Arun Monga directed the State to ensure that all the competent authorities that were vested with the power to suspend, adhere to a reasonable time limit of 30 days from the date of the suspension order, to initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet or show cause notice.

Common Practice To Not Reflect Casual/ Daily Wage Worker In Employment Records: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Grant Of Award To Such Employee

Title: Karnawat Marbles v Sohan Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 178

Rajasthan High Court has upheld an order of the Tribunal under Employees Compensation Act granting compensation to a daily wage worker (respondent) who was injured during his employment but was not appearing in the Employees State Insurance Register or the attendance register of the employer-appellant.

While agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal that the employee could be a daily-wage worker, the bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that it was a common industrial practice to not reflect casual or daily wage workers in the formal employment records.

Unsuccessful Candidate Can't Challenge Expert Opinion Later, Claiming That Self Assessment Showed His Answers To Be Correct: Rajasthan HC

Title: Kalyan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that an unsuccessful candidate cannot later challenge the opinion of experts on the ground that in their self assessment the candidate believes their answer to be correct going against the expert opinion.

In doing so the high court the dismissed an man's plea who could not qualify the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) exam, but had sought bonus marks or deletion of those questions that he could not attempt claiming that he was not provided with a steam table and psychometric chart.

Termination In Service Law Like Capital Punishment: Rajasthan HC Quashes Order Removing PT Instructor Based Only On Show-Cause Notice

Title: Shravan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 171

While directing reinstatement of a government employee terminated without charge sheet or disciplinary inquiry, the Rajasthan High Court said that an order of termination in service law is akin to capital punishment which can be passed only after holding a proper inquiry to prevent punishment of innocent persons.

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition filed by a Physical Training Instructor who was terminated from services based on a show cause notice that alleged him to have secured appointment by playing fraud, without issuing any charge sheet or conducting any disciplinary inquiry.

Denying Employment To Convict Let Off On Probation Defeats 'Rehabilitation & Re-Integration' Purpose Of Statute: Rajasthan HC

Title: Mohammad Aslam v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 51

Rajasthan High Court allowed petition filed by a petitioner who was denied compassionate appointment on grounds on his previous conviction for causing hurt and wrongful restrain where he was released on probation, ruling that once he was let off on probation, he had to be given benefit of the very reason and the objective of the Probation of Offenders Act (“the Act”).

The bench of Justice Arun Monga held that the intention behind Act was rehabilitation and re-integration of an offender into the society and not granting compassionate appointment to the Petitioner would defeat that purpose.

Can't Cancel Appointments On Mere Allegation Of Discrepancies In Degrees Of Candidates: Rajasthan HC Forms Panel To Conduct Inquiry

Title: Yashwant v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 145

The Rajasthan High Court formed a 3-member committee headed by the Secretary of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for conducting factual inquiry into the allegations against certain individuals regarding discrepancies in the degrees submitted by them at the time of appointment by the education department.

Justice Dinesh Mehta in his order formed the committee observing that until the committee submitted its report to State Of Rajasthan–Secondary Education, Directorate– no prejudicial action could be taken against the petitioners.

Expect State To Issue Online Circular Stating Superannuation Age Of Dental, MBBS Medical Officers To Be 62 Years: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dr. Renu Kala Mathur v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 142

The Rajasthan High Court has said that it expects the State to issue a circular/notification on their website stating that the age of superannuation of Medical Officers holding BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgeon)/MBBS degree was 62 years, with immediate effect.

Justice Rekha Borana passed the order in a petition challenging the State's decision retiring the petitioner–a qualified BDS–at the age of 60 years, while relying on the division bench decision in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan v State of Rajasthan. In doing so the court said that the judgment in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan was a judgment in rem applying to all Medical Officers (Dental) despite which the State failed to comply with the same.

Temporary Teachers Can Challenge Termination Under Non-Govt Educational Institutions Act, Removal Without Reasons Is Wrong: Rajasthan HC

Title: Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya v Saurabh Upadhayaya, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 144

The Rajasthan High Court has held that appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 is maintainable even in matters of termination of temporary employees since the mandate under Section 18 of the Act had to followed even in case of regular as well as temporary employees.

Section 18 of the Act provides the procedure to remove, dismiss or reduce the rank of the employees in institutions.

Mere "Benefit Of Doubt" Acquittal Can't Be Used As Ruse To Deprive Employee Of Legitimate Financial Entitlements: Rajasthan HC

Title: Nathu Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 46

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner (Junior Engineer) who was under suspension between 2002 to 2009 due to a criminal case in which he eventually got acquitted, and his service were also restored but was denied the payment of arrears on the ground that his acquittal was merely based on benefit of doubt.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga termed this stance taken by the State as “insipid” and opined that it was only when no evidence was found against the accused that the Court acquitted him. And once acquitted, relying on “benefit of doubt” as a reason to deny him arrears was not only unfair, unjust and arbitrary, but also against the principle of restoring him to his rightful position as was before suspension.

Home Guards Rendering Long Non-Rotational Service Not 'Volunteers' Anymore, Disheartening To See Exploitation By State: Rajasthan HC

Title: Kuldeep Parasar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 148

Rajasthan High Court ruled that the home guards who were on non-rotational duty ever since their deployment without any break could not be considered as “volunteers” since the extraordinary longevity of their service had transformed their role from voluntary to de facto employment with the State.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that despite relying so heavily on their services, the State was exploiting them as a cost-effective labour without offering commensurate protections, remunerations, job security or post-retiral benefits. Such a treatment was not only unfair but also unsustainable.

Arbitrary': Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Widow Who Was Denied Post Due To Pending Criminal Case Arising Out Of Matrimonial Issue

Title: Neeraj Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 149

The Rajasthan High Court grants relief to a widow candidate who had successfully cleared the interview of the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS), but was denied appointment on the ground of pending criminal cases arising out of matrimonial discord.

Justice Arun Monga held that despite pending criminal proceedings being a condition for ineligibility prescribed in a circular, the administrative discretion had to operate in harmony with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v Union of India.

Disproportionate: Rajasthan HC Quashes CRPF Constable's Dismissal For Entering Fellow Constable's Home When Only His Wife Was Present

Case Title: R. Magadaiah v I.G. CRPF & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 78

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside termination of services of a CRPF constable who was found guilty of entering into the quarters of a fellow constable in the presence of only the latter's wife and young child, and trying to flee when he was asked to come out, on the ground that the imposed punishment was disproportionate.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that when the punishment was disproportionate, the Court could interfere under its limited scope of judicial review. It was opined that there had to be fairness in all administrative decisions, especially in imposing punishments that not only impacted the employee but also their family members by depriving the employee of their livelihood.

Internship Isn't Employment: Rajasthan HC Rejects Plea For Bonus Marks For Internship During Covid-19 To Seek Appointment As Nursing Officer

Title: Pritika Gahlot & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 134

The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea moved by various students pursuing diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course, who had interned during Covid-19 pandemic period, and had thus sought bonus marks as provided to Covid Health Assistant (CHA) for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer.

Justice Arun Monga opined that internship being an integral part of the academic curriculum, without which the diploma could not be granted, could not be termed as an employment but rather a continuation of the student-hood. Hence, on this ground, the petitioners were not entitled to seek benefits of bonus marks claiming to be under employment.

Re-Evaluation Marks Can't Relate Back To Date Of Original Result For Ineligible Candidate To Claim Eligibility For Appointment: Rajasthan HC

Title: Kiran Yadav v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 133

The Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed by an candidate for appointment to the post of PT Instructor, who had cleared the qualifying exam only in "re-evaluation", the result of which was declared after the original result of the written exam for the post was conducted.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon precedents to hold that the result of re-evaluation could not relate back to the date of original declaration of result, and hence, one cannot claim themselves to be eligible for the advertised post since they were declared successful in the qualifying exam only after the submission of the application form.

Rajasthan HC Slams State For Transferring 8-Month Pregnant Officer 320 Km Away From Current Posting, Orders Sensitization Of Authority

Case Title: Sulochana v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 40

Terming the State's action in transferring an 8-month pregnant nursing officer 320 km away from her current posting as a display of "sheer apathy and callous disregard for basic human dignity", the Rajasthan High Court directed the Health Secretary to sensitize its officers empowered to pass transfer orders.

It said this while emphasizing that "maternal health has been given statutory protection by prohibiting work that may interfere with pregnancy or fetal development" and an employer cannot "force a pregnant woman to perform tasks that pose a risk to her or her baby".

Paying Only Subsistence Allowance To Employee Suspended Due To Criminal Case And Later Acquitted Without Dept Proceedings Amounts To Punishment: Rajasthan HC

Title: Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. v Ram Niwas Sharma & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 90

The Rajasthan High Court held that when an employee was suspended during pendency of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“PC Act”) in which he was acquitted, in absence of any departmental proceedings against him, restricting his pay during suspension period to only subsistence allowance amounted to punishing such employee which could not be allowed. Court said:

“The Tribunal rightly concluded that there was no departmental proceedings initiated and after acquittal in the criminal case, there was no occasion to restrict the pay during suspension period to the subsistence allowance. In other words, in absence of any departmental enquiry and any punishment order thereof by the department and after acquittal in criminal case the employee cannot be punished by restricting the pay during the period of suspension.”

Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To Eligible Govt Lecturer Denied Selection Scale For Not Signing Application Form Despite Filling It Correctly

Title: Satyaveer Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 156

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a government lecturer who was denied grant of selection scale on the ground that he failed to affix his signatures on the application form that was submitted by him for the same.

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in his order said:

"Merely because, non-affixing his signatures on the application form cannot be a ground to deny benefit of grant of selection scale to the petitioner, if the details filled in the application form are correct and the petitioner is otherwise eligible for grant of selection scale".

Employer Must Make Efforts To Expedite Departmental Proceedings Against Delinquent Employee', Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Sushila Devi Jatav versus State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 56

The Rajasthan High Court with its Bench at Jaipur comprising of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that departmental proceedings against a delinquent employee must be concluded within a reasonable time frame and preferably within six months in order to avoid inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of such employee. It was observed that in such cases, the duty to have the inquiry concluded within the shortest possible time span falls upon the Employer and it must be ensured that efforts are made to expedite such proceedings.

Closure Of Hostel Mess During Covid-19 Didn't Scrap Post: Rajasthan HC Orders Private School To Reinstate Workers Terminated Without Process

Case Title: Management Committee, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Vidyashram & Anr.v Rameshwar Lal Meena & Anr., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

The Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of hostel-mess workers of Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan Vidyashram school–run by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan educational trust–who were terminated without following the prescribed procedure, ruling that a decision to close the hostel mess did not amount to abolition of the post.

28 Years On, Rajasthan High Court Asks Authority To Consider Compassionate Appointment Of Man Who Lost Father At Age Of Two

Title: Bharat Kumar v Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 138

The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State Electricity Transmission Corporation to consider the plea for compassionate appointment of a man, who lost his serving father back in the year 1997. The man was only 2 years old at the time.

Ordinarily, compassionate appointment is an "immediate relief" to the family of a deceased government servant, mitigating the financial distress caused by the loss of the breadwinner.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Contractual Employee Who Was Given Only 2 Months Maternity Leave In 2008

Title: Smt. Basanti Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

While reiterating that discriminating between regular females employees and those on contractual basis, by denying complete 180 days of maternity leaves to the latter was violative of Article 14 and 21, Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay additional salary (with interest @ 9% p.a.) of remaining period to the petitioner who was granted only 2 months' maternity leave when applied for in 2008.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that a mother is a mother irrespective of being employed on a regular basis or on contractual basis and newborn babies of contractual workers also had the same right to life as those of regular employees.

Availing Employee's Services Without Pay Violates Fundamental Right Against 'Begar': Rajasthan HC Slams State Over Unpaid Dues Since 2016

Title: Sunil Dattatrey v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 62

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that depriving any employee of their salary without any justification amounted to violation under Articles 21, 23 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a public employee who was not paid his salary since 2016, for almost 97 months now without any justification, despite providing his services to the State.

Married Daughter Being Sole Surviving Family Member Of Deceased Govt Employee Is Entitled To Compassionate Employment: Rajasthan HC

Title: Union of India & Ors. v Smt. Rinky Sharma

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 89

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a challenge against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that directed the State to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent, who was the married daughter of the deceased employee, whose husband was also employed and earning.

The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur affirmed CAT's reliance on the full bench decision of the Court in Smt. Heena Sheikh v State of Rajasthan (“Heena Sheikh Case”) in which it was decided that married daughter of a deceased employee was entitled to compassionate appointment.

Can't Protect Illegal Appointment: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea By Asst Prof Candidate Whose Appointment Was Cancelled Over Wrong PhD Completion Date

Title: Dr. Sabyasachi Swain v Malviya National Institute of Technology & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed by a candidate whose appointment was cancelled by Malviya National Institute of Technology (“MNIT”) after it was found that he incorrectly submitted the date of his Ph.D completion, and in fact was not possessing the qualification on the last date of application submission.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also opined that there could not be any waiver or relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless the power of such relaxation was duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Furthermore, exercise of such power had to be done with vide publicity by indicating in the advertisement so that potential beneficiaries get the opportunity to apply and compete.

Rajasthan HC Orders Regularization Of Govt Employee Withdrawn Citing Educational Criteria Despite Favourable Court Orders, Fines ₹2 Lakh

Title: Prahlad Sahai Meena v Chief Executive Officer, Admn. Khadi and Village Industries Commission

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 122

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an order withdrawing regularization of a government employee due to non-fufilment of educational qualification, after noting that the order was not only against the categorical directions of the court's division bench which was upheld by Supreme Court but also violated judicial precedents.

In doing so the court found that the issue of the petitioner's qualification was not raised during the first round of litigation. The court further said that the failure to raise this issue during the earlier stages of litigation renders the subsequent invocation of the qualification requirements "as an afterthought" and "unworthy of judicial consideration at this stage”.

Remained Silent Till 2016: Rajasthan HC Modifies Order On Payment Of Benefits To Lecturer From 1998 When She Got PhD, Says She Caused Delay

Case Title: Managing Committee & Anr. v Dr. Vijay Laxmi & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 98

The Rajasthan High Court modified an order passed by the State Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal which directed a college to grant two annual increments to an Economic lecturer from the date when she completed her Ph.D in 1998, after noting that the latter had raised demand for benefits only in 2016.

In doing so the court observed when the lecturer did not make any written application for benefits of arrears after passing her Ph.D Degree, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to issue directions to the college management to grant her two annual increments with effect from the date when she passed and completed her Ph.D Degree.

Can't Allow Candidates Who Contest For Diploma Post Despite Holding Degree To Be Transferred To Cadre Of Degree Holders: Rajasthan HC

Title: Ram Niwas & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 101

Rajasthan High Court rejected petitions filed by employees of Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan (“State”) whose transfer from the cadre of Civil Engineers (Diploma Holders) to Civil Engineers (Degree Holders) was revoked, on the ground that such benefit under Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973 (“the Rules”) was not for a candidate who had both diploma and degree at the time of appointment but rather for those who acquired the degree during service.

Rajasthan HC Orders Woman's Appointment As Clerk Denied For Taking Back Original Documents In Bonafide Belief That Selection Process Is Over

Case Title: Radha v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 121

The Rajasthan High Court directed the appointment of a woman as a clerk, who scored more marks compared to candidates in fourth waiting list but was denied appointment on the ground that after issuance of three supplementary select lists and believing the process to be over, she took back her original documents signing a pre-typed affidavit stating that she won't raise any claim to the post in future.

Eligibility Should Be Checked At Threshold, Not After Selection: Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Asha Worker Denied Post Despite Selection

Title: Santosh Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 119

The Rajasthan High Court has direct the State authorities to appoint a woman to the post of Asha Sahyogini at Anganwadi Centre Mandela who was although selected but was denied the post by issuing fresh advertisement that too without cancelling the earlier selection process.

Before the high court the respondents claimed that the petitioner is not eligible on the eligibility on the ground of her not being resident of same village where she has to work as Asha Sahyogini.

Candidate With 90% Hearing Impairment Erroneously Not Considered Under PwD Category: Rajasthan HC Directs Appointment On Humanitarian Grounds

Title: Shri Pankaj Vasita v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to grant appointment to the petitioner, who had 90% hearing impairment and had applied for the post of Safai Karamchari in 2018 but due to some software error was not considered for the draw of lots under the PwD category, resulting in his non-appointment.

Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner's appointment might appear unfair since he did not participate in the draw of lots for the post under PwD category, however, such were the vagaries of litigation in which sometimes candidates fetch fortuitous benefits.

Rajasthan HC Upholds Reversal Of Certain Teachers' Promotion To Maintain Seniority, Says Not Granting Them Hearing Caused No Prejudice

Title: Arun Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 13

Rajasthan High Court has upheld the unilateral reversal of promotion granted to certain Grade-III Teachers, in order to maintain the list of seniority.

In such a scenario, bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta said, the State's omission to give the teachers an opportunity of hearing did not cause any prejudice since admittedly, the persons who were granted promotion in Petitioners' place, were senior to the petitioners.

Rajasthan HC Slams State For Denying Mason Post To Man With Amputation In Non-Dominant Hand, Appointing Man With Amputation In Dominant Hand Instead

Title: Arvind Kumar v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 14

Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition filed by a candidate denied mason post for being declared medically unfit on account of amputated little finger of his left hand (non-dominant hand), as opposed to another candidate who was given the employment despite having amputation of finger in his dominant hand.

While terming the approach of the State to be “lopsided on the very basic commonsense”, the bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner was subjected to discrimination as compared to the other candidate, and observed that what had to be seen for a right-handed person was if he had any unfitness in the same hand, and if not, whether the left hand interfered with the skill of the right hand.

LIC Suffered No Loss, Gained More Business: Rajasthan HC Quashes Recovery Order Against Officer For Not Reporting Agent In Govt Service

Case Title: Padam Chand Prajapat v L.I.C and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 24

The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed Life insurance Corporation of India's order (LIC) initiating recovery proceedings against its Development Officers in connection with the money generated by the business conducted by an agent who was not authorized to work for LIC as he was in government service.

Denying Regularization From Correct Date By Making Distinction Based On Initial Nature Of Work Arbitrary, Violates Art. 14, 16: Rajasthan HC

Title: Abdul Hamid v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 25

The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed the State government's order, which did not regularize a man on the ground that his initial work on daily wages was different from his counterparts, terming the consideration as “irrelevant” and the actions of the State as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.

Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Termination Of Govt Employee For Appearing As Dummy Candidate In Exam, Says Charge Wasn't Included In Charge-Sheet

Title: Dinesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 6

Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of a District Education Officer wherein the services of a Junior Assistant (Clerk Grade-II) (“Petitioner”) were terminated based on the fact that the ground on which the Petitioner was terminated was not appearing either in the charge sheet or in the inquiry report.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta held that,

“In the opinion of this Court, when there was no charge in the memorandum of charges relating to petitioner's involvement as a dummy candidate and charge No.3 was only in relation to concealment from the respondents of his arrest in a criminal case, the disciplinary authority could not have proceeded on assumption of his guilt of appearing as a dummy candidate, more particularly, when neither the charge-sheet nor the inquiry report suggested the same.”

Only Chief Secretary/ Administrative Reforms Dept Can Direct Joint Inquiry Against Delinquents From Different Departments: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Tulcha Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 31

In a case where two officers governed by two different departments and disciplinary authorities are booked by only one taking disciplinary action, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court said that in such a case only the Chief Secretary/competent authority of Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department can direct a joint inquiry under the relevant rules.

Delay In Conducting Qualifying Exam By State Can't Be Attributed To Candidate: Rajasthan HC Directs Regularization Of Service From Prescribed Date

Title: Mamta Sharma v State and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 33

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a Lower Division Clerk whose services were regularized from a later date than the date of completion of her probation period owing to delay on part of the State in conducting the prescribed examination that was required to be cleared for such regularization.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the petitioner was willing and available throughout for giving the prescribed typing test, however, the department failed to conduct the same within the stipulated timeline owing to delay in construction of computer labs, and preparation of syllabus, rules, and procedures.

Court Cannot Act As Disciplinary Authority To Decide Correctness Of Allegations Against Delinquent Employee: Rajasthan HC

Title: Jagdish Prasad v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 103

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a writ petition does not ordinarily lie against a charge-sheet issued in disciplinary proceedings unless it was established that the same was issued by an authority that was not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that charge-sheet could not be interfered with by the Court in a light or routine manner, and instead of seeking quashing of the same at the initial stage, the delinquent employee should submit a reply before the disciplinary authority and wait for conclusion of the proceedings.

Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Employee's Demotion From Post Held For 17 Years, Says Decision Rejecting Peer's Plea Seeking Same Relief Not In Rem

Case Title: Sunder Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 18

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside a 14-year-old order demoting a government employee from a post on which he served for 17 years, wherein the demotion was directed based on a judgment in a plea by a similarly situated counterpart who had also sought promotion but was denied noting that he wasn't entitled to it.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that since there was no discussion of the petitioner's case in the other writ petition, no adverse consequences could be drawn onto the petitioner merely based on some observations regarding his promotion being erroneous made in passing reference.

S.498A IPC | Circular Barring Husband From Seeking Govt Employment Due To Wife's Pending Cruelty Case Violates Article 14, 21: Rajasthan HC

Case Title: Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 19

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside order rejecting candidature of the petitioner based on pending cruelty case under Section 498A IPC, ruling that at best the petitioner was "merely an under trial" and his fate is yet to be determined based on the trial's outcome.

Furthermore, the court noted that a mere break down of marriage could not be treated as if the husband was the "sole erring party" just because his wife pressed criminal charges against him which were yet to be proved.

Supreme Court

State Govt Employee Who Worked On Deputation In Central Govt Dept Not Entitled To Pension As Per CCS Rules : Supreme Court

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA VERSUS PHANI BHUSAN KUNDU & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Recently, the Supreme Court held that the service rendered by a state government employee on a deputation basis in a central government's department would not entitle him to pension as per Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS Pension Rules”).

The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed the Union of India's appeal, overturning the Calcutta High Court's decision, which had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing that the respondent employee's pension be calculated based on the central pay scale.

Against Wrongful Dismissal, Lumpsum Compensation Could Be Better Remedy Than Reinstatement With Backwages In Certain Cases : Supreme Court

Case Name: MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 212

The Supreme Court observed that a grant of lumpsum compensation could be the more appropriate remedy in cases of wrongful dismissal of an employee instead of reinstatement with back wages in certain cases. While directing such compensation, the courts are required to justify their approach, keeping in mind the interests of the employee and the employer.

Leave Encashment Rules Must Be Strictly Interpreted' : Supreme Court Denies Leave Encashment To Govt Servant Re-employed After Retirement

Case Details : STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS VERSUS DR. MOOL RAJ KOTWAL|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 23709-23710 OF 2023

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 472

In a case concerning Sikkim Government Service, the Supreme Court recently held that a Government Servant who has been re-employed after retirement cannot take the benefit of leave encashments if he had availed the maximum of 300 days of leave encashment before his retirement.

The Court also held that while the policy of leave encashment is made for the welfare of the deserving employees, it cannot be allowed excessively at the behest of the Public Exchequer.

Disciplinary Action Can't Be Upheld When Employee Was Acquitted In Criminal Case Over Similar Evidence : Supreme Court

Case Details: MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 474

The Supreme Court recently held that when charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in criminal proceedings and a disciplinary proceeding are identical or substantially similar and when an accused is acquitted of all charges in a criminal proceeding, upholding the findings in disciplinary proceedings would be "unjust, unfair, and oppressive".

"While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan," the Court observed.

Invalided Soldier Presumed To Be Disabled Due To Military Service; Entitled To Disability Pension : Supreme Court

Case : Bijender Singh vs Union of India

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 477

While ordering the grant of 50% disability pension to an army personnel who was discharged from service 36 years ago, the Supreme Court reiterated that a soldier, who is invalided out of service, is presumed to have incurred the disease/disability due to military service.

It is the burden of the Army to prove that the disability was not on account of military service, the Court said, since only a medically fit person is enrolled into the service.

Transfer Of Govt Employee On Request Can't Be Termed Transfer In Public Interest Or Administrative Exigencies : Supreme Court

Case Name: GEETHA V M & ORS V RETHNASENAN K. & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3994-3997 OF 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 39

The Supreme Court has observed that the transfer of an employee is an incidence of service if it is in public interest. It added that the government is the best judge to decide how to utilise the services of an employee. Further, if an employee requests, the government may post that employee as per the request. However, such transfer will not be in public interest as the same is based on the employee's request and not administration exigencies.

Time-Barred Service Dispute Can't Be Revived By Making A Belated Representation: Supreme Court

Case Title: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & OTHERS VS. S. LALITHA & OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 479

The Supreme Court held that a time-barred service dispute cannot be brought within the limitation period as per the Administrative Tribunals Act by filing a belated representation.

When a government servant is aggrieved by a denial of a benefit, which is not based on a formal order, then a representation must be filed within a reasonable time. The cause of action to approach the Administrative Tribunal arises when an order is passed on such representation or no order is passed after the lapse of six months from the submission of the representation.

Employee Can't Be Denied Pension Citing 'Break In Service' If Absence Was Regularized As Extraordinary Leave : Supreme Court

Case Title: JAYA BHATTACHARYA Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 252

The Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits cannot be denied to a retired government employee whose unauthorized absence from duty was treated as extraordinary leave, leading to the regularization of their service.

The Court said that if despite the employee's prolonged absence from the service, his service is regularized during the period of absence by treating his absence as extraordinary leave, then the absence cannot be considered as a 'break in service' to deny pensionary benefits.

Bank Officers Expected To Maintain Higher Standards Of Honesty' : Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal Of Staff For Bank Fraud

Case Name: THE GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL SYNDICATE BANK VS B S N PRASAD., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6327 OF 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 92

While deciding an appeal pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against a bank manager, the Supreme Court reiterated that acquittal in a criminal case does not exonerate the person in disciplinary proceedings. The Court reasoned that the standard of proof differs in both of these scenarios.

The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih also stressed that "bank officers are expected to maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct". It also referred to its decision in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Another v. Munn Lal Jain., (2005) 10 SCC 84. Therein, the Court observed that every bank employee should take all possible steps to protect the bank's interests and discharge his duties with the utmost integrity.

CCS Pension Rules | Contractual Service Must Count Towards Pension Once Employee Is Regularised : Supreme Court

Case Title: S.D. JAYAPRAKASH AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 506

The Supreme Court observed that a contract job period should be counted for pensionary benefits, once the government employee is regularized.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi ruled in favour of government employees who were initially appointed on a contractual basis and later regularized, holding that they are entitled to pensionary benefits for their entire service period

In Direct Recruitment Through Exam, Seniority Must Be Based On Marks & Not Past Service : Supreme Court

Case Title: R. RANJITH SINGH & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 528

The Supreme Court recently invalidated a Tamil Nadu government order that gave in-service candidates seniority over open market recruits, despite the latter scoring higher marks in the selection exams. The Court emphasized that seniority should be based on performance in the exams rather than unrelated factors such as prior in-service experience.

The Court reiterated that once an appointment to service is made based upon a competitive examination, the seniority has to be maintained on the basis of performance in the examination and not by taking into account the past service alone.

Supreme Court Rejects PSU's Plea Against Order To Include HRA & Other Allowances In Overtime Wage Calculation

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 58516/2024

Case Title – Munitions India Limited & Anr. v. Ammunition Factory Workers Union & Ors.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 2) dismissed an SLP filed by PSU Munitions India Limited against an interim order of the Bombay High Court directing the implementation of a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) decision that mandated including certain compensatory allowances in the calculation of overtime wages under the Factories Act, 1948.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, clarified, however, that the petitioners could approach the High Court to seek an expedited hearing of their pending petition against the CAT decision.

CAPFs Entitled To All Benefits Of Organised Group-A Services, Gradually Reduce Deputation Of IPS Officers To CAPFs : Supreme Court

Case Title – Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 625

The Supreme Court held the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) must be treated as part of Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) not only for the purpose of granting Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) but also for all cadre-related matters, including cadre review.

“Now that the Central Government has accepted that CAPFs are included in OGAS, the natural consequences should follow. Eligible officers belonging to the CAPFs have already been granted NFFU following the decision of this Court in Harananda (supra). DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019 makes it abundantly clear that the CAPFs have been treated as OGAS for cadre issues and all other related matters. In other words, CAPFs are OGAS for all purposes. When CAPFs have been declared as OGAS, all benefits available to OGAS should naturally flow to the CAPFs. It cannot be that they are granted one benefit and denied the other”, the Court stated.

Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Be Continued Beyond Time Limit Set By Courts Without Seeking Extension : Supreme Court

Case Details: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, LUCKNOW v. RAM PRAKASH SINGH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 463

The Supreme Court today (April 23) held that when a fixed time is stipulated by a Tribunal or Court to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, continuation of such proceedings beyond that time could be illegal if no bona fide attempt is made to seek extension of time.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra also stated that if the Tribunal/Court fixes a time with a rider that, in default, the enquiry will lapse, the disciplinary authority in such a case would cease to have jurisdiction.

Reservation Notified In Advertisement Cannot Be Cancelled By Subsequent Roster Change : Supreme Court

Case Title: PRABHJOT KAUR Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Reiterating that the 'rules of the game' cannot be changed midway, the Supreme Court recently allowed the plea of a woman whose selection to the post of f Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), being reserved for SC Sports (Women), was changed under a roster which came in to effect after releasing of the recruitment advertisement.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Appellant-candidate had applied for the post of DSP based on the original advertisement dated 11.12.2020 which reserved one DSP post for "SC Sports (Women)”.

Excess Payments To Employee Can't Be Recovered When There Was No Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Supreme Court

Case : Jogeswar Sahoo and others vs The District Judge Cuttack and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 396

The Supreme Court has reiterated that excess payment made to an employee cannot be recovered if such payment was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. Also, excess payment to the employee due to any wrong application of the rule or incorrect calculation on the part of the employer is not recoverable.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was deciding the appeals filed by persons, who were working as Stenographers and Personal Assistants in the Orissa District Judiciary, against the recoveries of excess payments. Amounts in the range of Rs.20,000 to 40,000 were sought to be recovered from the appellants. The recoveries were ordered nearly three years after their retirement and six years after the payment.

Payment Of Bonus Act | Workers Can't Be Denied Bonus Saying Factories Are Run By Charitable Trust : Supreme Court

Case Title: THE MANAGEMENT OF WORTH TRUST Versus THE SECRETARY, WORTH TRUST WORKERS UNION

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 386

The Supreme Court held that an entity running factories cannot deny bonus to workers on the ground that the factories are being run by a charitable trust.

Observing that entitlement to bonus is a statutory right under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (“Bonus Act”), the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of the factory management who resisted payment of bonus to its workmen citing its dependence on the Red Cross Society, which is exempted under the Bonus Act from payment of Bonus.

No Universal Rule That Candidate With Qualification Higher Than Basic Eligibility For Post Must Be Preferred: Supreme Court

Case : Jomon KK v Shajimon P and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Though over-qualification by itself is not a disqualification, there is no general rule that candidates with qualifications higher than the basic qualification required for a post must be preferred, observed the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered today.

The Court observed that there is no straight-jacket rule that candidates with higher qualifications must be selected over those with possessing the basic qualification. Each case will depend on its facts, the rules governing the selection process, the nature of duty to be performed etc.

Art 311 Doesn't Mean Only Appointing Authority Can Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Govt Servant : Supreme Court

Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. VS. RUKMA KESH MISHRA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 368

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the appointing authority is not required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a state employee. Referring to Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the Court clarified that while the appointing authority's approval is necessary for dismissal, it is not required for initiating disciplinary action.

Holding so, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan allowed the State of Jharkhand's appeal, overturning the High Court's decision that had quashed the dismissal of the respondent-state employee solely due to the lack of prior separate approval from the Chief Minister for the charge sheet.

KWA Service | Once Appointed As Assistant Engineer, Right To Opt For Degree Or Diploma Quota For Promotion Remains Open: Supreme Court

Neutral Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 358 | Sajithabhai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors.

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's ruling on a seniority dispute between Kerala Water Authority's 'directly recruited' and 'promoted' Assistant Engineers. The Court held that Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (Subordinate Service Rules) and Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 (Special Rules) govern completely separate cadres. The court further held that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules applies only after appointment as Assistant Engineer, and cannot be applied for lower promotions.

Govt Employee Transferred On Request Can't Claim Existing Seniority In New Post : Supreme Court

Case Title: THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ANR. VERSUS K.C. DEVAKI

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 350

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the transfer of a government employee upon their request cannot be classified as a transfer in public interest. It further held that an employee cannot claim seniority based on their previous position, as seniority resets upon a request-based transfer.

“If a government employee holding a particular post is transferred on public interest, he carries with him his existing status including seniority to the transferred post. However, if an officer is transferred at his own request, such a transferred employee will have to be accommodated in the transferred post, subject to the claims and status of the other employees at the transferred place, as their interests cannot be varied without there being any public interest in the transfer. Subject to specific provision of the Rules governing the services, such transferees are generally placed at the bottom, below the junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre or department.”, the Court observed.

Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes | Default Retiral Benefit Scheme Is Pension & Gratuity Unless Employee Specifically Opts For Contributory Provident Fund: Supreme Court

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Case : Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a retired University professor. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that under the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976, the default retiral benefit scheme is General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity, unless an employee specifically opts for the Contributory Provident Fund scheme. The Court set aside the Patna High Court's judgment and directed the University to provide the appellant with pension benefits within four months.

When Selection Is Based Entirely On Interview Marks, It's Reasonable To Presume Existence Of Arbitrariness & Favouritism: Supreme Court

Case Title – State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 307

The Supreme Court recently upheld the 2016 decision of the then BJP government of Assam to cancel a select list for the recruitment process of 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) notified in 2014 by the then Indian National Congress government.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan found that the cancellation was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, given the anomalies in the recruitment process identified by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, including skewed district representation and reservation policy violations.

When Selection Is Based Entirely On Interview Marks, It's Reasonable To Presume Existence Of Arbitrariness & Favouritism: Supreme Court

Case Title – State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 307

The Supreme Court recently upheld the 2016 decision of the then BJP government of Assam to cancel a select list for the recruitment process of 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) notified in 2014 by the then Indian National Congress government.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan found that the cancellation was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, given the anomalies in the recruitment process identified by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, including skewed district representation and reservation policy violations.

KS & SSR| Govt Employee Transferred By Way Of Absorption To Another Department Can Retain Seniority Of Previous Dept : Supreme Court

Case Name: GEETHA V M & ORS V RETHNASENAN K. & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3994-3997 OF 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 39

The Supreme Court (recently on January 03) held that employees who are transferred on absorption to another department are entitled to retain the seniority of their previous department as per the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules(KS&SSR).

The Court held that the proviso to Rule 27(a) of the KS & SSR, which hold that previous seniority cannot be claimed when an employee is transferred on request, won't apply to transfer on absorption.

Telangana High Court

Employee Can't Be Denied Back Wages On Reinstatement When Rules Don't Provide 'No Pay' Punishment For Time Spent Out Of Service: Telangana HC

Case title : A. Rajaram Reddy vs. Additional Collector/ PIC Chairman Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank and Others

Reiterating that a punishment which is not provided in rules can't be imposed, the Telangana High Court set aside punishment of 'dies-non and no salary/ remuneration' resulting in non payment of back wages imposed on a physically handicapped co-operative bank employee for the period of time he was out of service.

Tripura High Court

Govt Must Assign Reasons For Keeping Any Post Vacant: Tripura High Court Asks State To Consider Promoting Female Jailor

Case Title: Smt. Bela Datta v. The State of Tripura & 2 Ors.

Case No.: WP(C) 826/2024

The Tripura High Court recently directed the State Jail Department to consider promotion of a Female Jailor to the post of Deputy Superintendent under Home Jail Department, Government of Tripura as she has been serving as Jailor for the last 12 years and has not been considered for promotion till date.

The single judge bench of Justice Arindam Lodh observed: “True it is that, promotion is not a matter of right, but it is a right to be considered. There is no quarrel about this proposition of law. It is also equally true that Court has limited jurisdiction to pass direction upon the employer to fill-up the vacancies. It is the prerogative of the employer whether the vacant posts would be filled-up or not.”