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 Case No. : 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...
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
Case No. : 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.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Case Title: M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another
Case No. : 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.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Bombay High Court
Voluntarily Abandoning Service Is Not Retrenchment: Bombay HC
Case Name: Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society vs Smt. Indira Madhukar Muraskar & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5139
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
Case Name: Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati vs Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5311
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.
Case Name: Zilla Parishad & Ors vs Pradeep Bhaurao Pokale
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5300
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
Case Name: The Superintending Engineer, MSEDCL vs Pundlik Kondiba Pachpinde
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15061
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.
Calcutta High Court
Illegal Disciplinary Proceedings And Termination Of Services Of Co-op Bank Employee : Calcutta HC Sets Aside Order
Case Name: Sagar Sengupta vs State of West Bengal &Ors.
Case No.: WPA 4221 of 2023
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.
Guest Faculty Not Workman Under Industrial Disputes Act: Calcutta HC
Case Name: Sri Hansraj Koley vs The Secretary, Labour Department and others
Case No.: WPA 10043 of 2025
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a challenge to an industrial tribunal's award. The court explained that a guest faculty who was paid honorariums for specific sessions, cannot claim the status of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Payment Of Gratuity Act; Controlling Authority Cannot Deny Interest On Delayed Gratuity: Calcutta HC
Case Name: Himangshu Karmakar vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.
Case No.: WPA 8398 of 2025
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) directed the Food Corporation of India ('FCI') to pay the statutory interest on delayed gratuity to an employee. The court held that under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the controlling authority has no discretion to deny interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
Rectification In Date Of Birth Of Employee Cannot Be Allowed When Age Is Determined Through Statutory Process: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Gangadhar Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number: W.P.A. 11453 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when the statutory process has been properly followed, any perceived procedural error or misapplication of law does not amount to a bona fide or clerical mistake. In the present case, as the petitioner's age was determined in accordance with the regulations applicable at the time of his appointment, the rejection of his request to rectify the date of birth cannot be considered illegal.
Adverse Remarks On Employee's Integrity Must Be Based On Conclusive Evidence In Disciplinary Proceedings : Calcutta High Court
Case Name : Shri Rajat Kumar Varshney v. Central Bank of India & Ors.
Case No. : FMA 327 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 2 of 2023
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that adverse remarks on an employee's integrity must be based on conclusive findings in disciplinary proceedings, and a person who has earned reputation cannot be ousted through imposition of a stigma on the basis of perverse findings.
Employee Transferred From Central Govt Scheme To State University Sanctioned Post, Not Objected By State Govt, Can't Be Denied Retiral Benefits : Calcutta HC
Case Name: The State of West Bengal vs. Asoke Kumar Maity & Ors.
Case No.: MAT 2098 of 2024 with CAN 2 of 2024
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De held that an employee transferred from central government scheme to state university sanctioned post without any objections from the state Government at the time of transfer, can't be denied retiral benefits.
Case Name: Midnapur District Service cum Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: WPA 2763 of 2025
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.
Central Administrative Tribunal
CAT Quashes Discharge Order Against Retd J&K Govt Employee Over Alleged Misconduct For Multiple Marriages, Grants 50% Back Wage
Case Name: Jahangir Khan vs State through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar & Ors
T.A. No. 61/5590/2021
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.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Cross-Examination By Enquiry Officer For Clarifications From Witness Does Not Vitiate Enquiry Proceedings : Chhattisgarh HC
Case Name : Chhatrapal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case No. : Writ Appeal No. 372 of 2025
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held that an Enquiry Officer can do Cross-Examination and seek clarifications from witnesses during enquiry proceedings and it would not render the enquiry proceedings void.
Delhi High Court
'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.
Gauhati High Court
Gauhati High Court Directs Temporary Music Teacher To Seek Governor's Discretionary Powers For Qualifying Her Service For Pension
Case Name: Juri Baruah vs The State Of Assam And Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:6569
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.
Gauhati HC Reinstates Officers Accused In APSC Cash-For-Jobs Scam, Says Discharge Can't Be Sustained Without Orders From Appropriate Govt
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 31
Case Title: Kamal Debnath v. The State of Assam & Anr. & connected petitions
Case No.: WA/59/2020
The Gauhati High Court recently directed the Assam Government to reinstate 52 officers who were appointed in service pursuant to their selection through Combined Competitive Examination (Mains), 2013 and 2014 conducted by Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) and were discharged from service allegedly for their involvement in cash for job scam, on the ground that State had not passed any order as envisaged under proviso (b) to the second proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
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.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
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”.
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”
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”.
Case title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13936/2024
A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma, held that eligibility for promotion or recruitment through limited competitive examination must strictly comply with the statutory service requirement under the applicable service rules, and administrative approvals cannot override these mandatory eligibility criteria.
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 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.
Case Name: Surinder Kumar vs Central Sanskrit University
Case No. : CWP No.15771 of 2024
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.
Every Individual Has Fundamental Right To Career Progression, Resignation Or Request For NOC Can't Be Denied Arbitrarily : Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Name: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Case No.: CWP No. 9718 of 2025
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that an unwilling employee cannot be compelled to continue in service merely on the ground of staff shortage; every individual has a fundamental right to career progression, and resignation or request for NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, especially when applicant is willing to serve the State as a Super Specialist for five years after completing the course.
Ex-Parte Inquiry Does Not Justify Returning Findings Without Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Vinod Kumar v/s State of HP & others
Case No.: CWPOA No.6228 of 2020
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that conducting an ex parte inquiry does not grant the Inquiry Officer the freedom to return findings against an employee without any evidence.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Ex Parte Inquiry does not mean that Inquiry Officer is free to return findings in favour of Department but against the employee without any evidence on record”
Penalty Can't Be Imposed Based On Vague And Inconclusive Inquiry Findings: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Dr. Subhash Thakur v/s State of HP & others
Case No.: CWPOA No.7220 of 2020
Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a penalty imposed on a government doctor, holding that a vague and inconclusive inquiry report can't be used to impose penalty or take disciplinary action.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Therefore, when an inquiry report is accepted which does not conclude that charge against petitioner had been proved, it could not have been made basis for imposing penalty. Such vague finding cannot be treated as an inquiry establishing the proof of guilt of petitioner with respect to charges levelled against him even on testing the same, degree of proof required to prove charge in Departmental Inquiry/service jurisprudence”.
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”.
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.”
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”.
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.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
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
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.
Karnataka High Court
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
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4478 OF 2022
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.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reinstatement Not Automatic Remedy For Illegal Termination, Court Awards Lumpsum Compensation: MP HC
Case Name: Mpmkvv Co. Ltd. & Others vs Surendra Kumar Gupta
Case No.: Misc. Petition No.4540 of 2023
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.
Rajasthan High Court
'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.