A. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, Rule 14 -- Appointment as judicial officer -- Employment by irregular or improper means -- Non-disclosure of former government service – Effect of -- Appellant submitted her resignation as teacher on 25.10.2018 much prior to her interview, which was conducted on 02.11.2018 -- Question of disclosing the past government service is certainly not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct for which she ought to be discharged from service especially when she has successfully completed her training without any blemish -- Not a case where the appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which may materially affect her commitment to the judiciary – Held, non-disclosure of past government service cannot be a ground for discharging the appellant -- Show cause notice as well as the order of discharge set aside.

(Para 17-21, 31)

B. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, Rule 44, 45, 46 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Appointment of judicial officer -- Discharge of probationer – Arbitrary or discriminatory discharge – Effect of -- Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or an absence of application of mind in the matter of assessment of performance and consideration of relevant materials -- Thus, in deciding whether, in a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the form.

(Para 26)

A. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 15(2) --  Disciplinary proceedings -- Vagueness of charge-sheet – Ground of -- Chargesheet contain the charges against the Appellant supported by documents -- Charge against the Appellant was that she managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake transfer order -- In this respect, the language of the said chargesheet is very clear and specific -- A common man on going through the same, would understand as to what were the charges which an employee was called upon to face and defend -- She was the sole beneficiary of the said transfer order -- Plea with regard to the vagueness of the chargesheet cannot be sustained.

(Para 18)

B. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 15(2) – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Non-supply of the copy of the Preliminary Inquiry Report – Ground of – It was never made the basis for coming to a conclusion in the regular Departmental Inquiry with regard to the guilt of the Appellant -- After the preliminary Inquiry, chargesheet was issued to the Appellant and thereafter a regular Departmental Inquiry was held where both the parties had led their respective evidence and on that basis the Inquiry Officer has returned his findings -- The principles of natural justice are founded on three fundamental rules that ensure fairness in legal and administrative proceedings.

-- Firstly, the Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) which mandates that no person should be judged without being given a fair opportunity to present his case.

-- Secondly, the Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua) which asserts that no one should act as a judge in its own case, thereby safeguarding impartiality and preventing any form of bias.

-- Lastly, the principle of Reasoned Decision, also known as Speaking Orders, requires every decision to be supported by valid and clearly stated reasons to promote transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.

Nothing on record which would indicate that the Appellant had ever sought for the Preliminary Inquiry Report after the issuance of the chargesheet -- No prejudice having been caused because of the non-supply of the preliminary Inquiry Report to the Appellant, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice would not be available to the Appellant -- Court is not bound to simply accept an assertion of a delinquent employee and proceed to question the disciplinary proceedings without being satisfied with regard to any prejudice having been caused to the employee.

(Para 19-23)

C. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 15(2) --  Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Disciplinary proceedings – Delay in conclusion -- Plea of prolongation of the Inquiry for 9 years – Held, mere delay during the inquiry proceedings, when it is explained with regard to the time taken for the inquiry to conclude and that too justifying the same with no prejudice having been caused, cannot be made the basis for vitiating the departmental proceedings -- Inordinate or unexplained delay in the departmental proceedings may be a justifiable ground if tampered with prejudice having been established to have been caused to the delinquent employee in the said process for interference by the Court -- Same is absent and therefore the said plea of delay fails.

(Para 25, 25)

Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, Regulation 19 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Allegation of adopting a very casual approach while sanctioning credit proposals in 16 accounts --  Respondent Bank sought the opinion of the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) -- Even before getting the first stage advice charge sheet was served upon the appellant – Once, the first stage advice of the CVC was called, it was the duty of the respondent-Bank to consider the advice and then take a decision to serve the chargesheet – Held, actions of the respondent-Bank are mala fide and arbitrary -- Appellant was sought to be victimised at the fag end of his unblemished career of 34 years -- High Court committed a gross error by holding that Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations was not mandatory – Almost six years have passed since the superannuation of the Appellant – Now, at this stage, it will be unjust to allow the respondent-Bank to resume disciplinary proceedings -- Disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet quashed and set aside -- Appellant shall not be entitled to back wages and allowances -- Respondent Bank directed to release all retirement benefits.

(Para 15-25)

A. Constitution of India, Article 233, 309 -- Promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service -- Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) – Quota – Eligibility -- All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country directed to amend the relevant service Rules to the effect that the quota of reservation for LDCE for promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service is increased to 25%;

-- All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that the minimum qualifying service required to appear in the LDCE for promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service be reduced to 3 years’ service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the total service required to be undertaken, including service rendered as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division), be set at a minimum of 7 years’ service;

If any post reserved for LDCE remains vacant, the same shall be filled through regular promotion on the basis of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ in that particular year -- Filling up of the vacant posts in the ratio considered for LDCE will have to be carried out from the simultaneous selection process carried out for regular promotions of the same year -- High Courts and the Governments of the States where the vacancies for the LDCE are not being calculated based on the cadre strength shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that the vacancies for LDCE be calculated on the basis of cadre strength.

(Para 89 (i), (ii), (iv), (v))

B. Constitution of India, Article 234, 309 -- Promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) -- Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) – Quota – Eligibility -- All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that 10% of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) be reserved for accelerated promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) candidates through LDCE mechanism -- The minimum qualifying service required for appearing in the said LDCE shall be three years’ service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) -- If any post reserved for LDCE remains vacant, the same shall be filled through regular promotion on the basis of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ in that particular year -- Filling up of the vacant posts in the ratio considered for LDCE will have to be carried out from the simultaneous selection process carried out for regular promotions of the same year.

High Courts and the Governments of the States where the vacancies for the LDCE are not being calculated based on the cadre strength shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that the vacancies for LDCE be calculated on the basis of cadre strength.

(Para 89 (iii), (iv), (v))

C. Constitution of India, Article 234, 309 -- Promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service -- All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country where the Rules are not framed or if they are framed but are not adequate to judge the suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall frame fresh Rules or amend the existing Rules keeping in mind various factors like:

(i) whether the candidate possesses updated knowledge of law;

(ii) the quality of judgments rendered by the Judicial Officer;

(iii) ACRs of the Judicial Officer of the preceding five years;

(iv) disposal rate in the preceding five years;

(v) performance of the Judicial Officer in the viva voce; and

(vi) general perceptions and awareness as also communication skills.

(Para 89 (vi))

D. Constitution of India, Article 234, 309 – Appointment/ Recruitment  as Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Minimum 3 year practice as an Advocate – Requirement of -- All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination -- Rules shall mandate that the candidate produces a certificate to that effect duly certified either by the Principal Judicial Officer of that Court or by an advocate of that Court having a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer at such a station -- Insofar as the candidates who are practicing before the High Courts or this Court, they shall be certified by an advocate who has a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by an officer designated by that High Court or this Court -- Experience of the candidates which they have gained while working as Law Clerks with any of the Judges or Judicial Officers in the country should also be considered while calculating their total number of years of practice -- The Rules shall also mandate that the candidates who are appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to their selection through the examination must compulsorily undergo at least 1 year of training before presiding in a Court;

-- number of years of practice completed by a candidate desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) be calculated from the date of their provisional enrolment/registration with the concerned State Bar Council;

-- said requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the concerned High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of judgment and shall be applicable only from the next recruitment process.

(Para 89 (vii)-(ix))

A. Constitution of India, Article 229 -- Appointment of Court Managers – Uniform Service conditions – Rules for appointment -- All the High Courts in the country shall frame or amend the rules providing for recruitment and conditions of service of Court Managers, by taking the Assam Rules of 2018 as the model Rules, and submit it to the State Government for approval within a period of 3 months from the date of judgment -- High Courts and the State Governments would be at liberty to make suitable modifications/changes so as to suit their peculiar needs -- Upon receipt of the rules framed or amendments thereof by the High Courts, the respective State Governments shall finalise and grant approval to the same within a further period of 3 months:

-- Minimum rank/ class of such Court Managers should be of a Class-II Gazetted Officer for the purpose of basic pay, allowances and other service benefits;

-- Court Managers appointed in the High Courts shall work under the directions and supervision of the Registrar General/ Registrars of the High Courts. Insofar as the Court Managers appointed in the District Courts are concerned, they shall work under the supervision and control of the Registrars/Superintendents (Head of the Ministerial Staff) of the concerned courts;

-- While determining the duties, functions and the responsibilities of the Court Managers, the Rules Committee of the High Courts shall ensure that their duties, functions and responsibilities do not overlap with that of the Registrars of the High Court/District Courts.

(Para 44)

B. Constitution of India, Article 229 -- Regularization of Court Managers – Court Managers, who are already working either on contractual or consolidated pay basis or on ad hoc basis shall be continued and regularized subject to their passing the suitability test as will be provided in the rules to be framed by the respective High Courts and approved by the respective State Governments;

-- entitled to regularization from the date of their initial appointment.

-- benefits of such a regularization though would entitle them for continuity in service for all the purposes including terminal benefits, they would not be entitled for the arrears, if any, on account of difference between salary for the period from the date on which they are working till the date of their actual regularization;

-- process of regularization of the Court Managers shall commence and be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of approval of the rules by the respective State Governments;

-- respective Registrar Generals of the High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments shall be personally responsible for adhering to the aforesaid timelines.

(Para 44)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Long pendency of FIR – Withholding of retiral benefits – Legality of -- Right of employee -- Challan was presented before the Trial Court on 08.02.2005 -- Petitioner virtually retired in July’ 2018 -- He is unable to get his retiral dues because of aforesaid FIR -- He cannot be held guilty for non-adjudication of aforesaid FIR -- The fault lies either with the Police Authorities or Public Prosecutor or Court Staff -- Respondent-State has no authority to withhold petitioner’s dues on account of pendency of aforesaid FIR -- State directed to release retiral dues of the petitioner -- If within two months, the Department is able to establish that petitioner was held guilty in aforesaid FIR, the status of retiral dues would be considered as per law.

(Para 8, 9)

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 39, 87 – Contribution by employer -- Exemption from ESI contribution -- Non-availability of medical facility in area –  Though the Appellant factory was said to have paid insurance to its employees under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 with the Oriental Insurance Company on the premise that there was no medical services available under the Act, the same per se cannot be a ground to exempt the Appellant factory from paying the E.S.I dues – Held, appropriate Government alone can consider this aspect as it requires a fact evaluation and an independent cause of action for the Appellant -- As long as the premises is under coverage of E.S.I. Act, there cannot be any exemption for payment by the authorities constituted under the Act.

(Para 13-18)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(g)(s) -- Master-servant relationship – Proof of -- Factum of master and servant relationship has to be proved on the basis the documentary evidence – No appointment order issued in favour of the respondent No.1-workman -- No salary slip issued by the petitioner-school in favour of the respondent No.1-workman has also been brought on record -- Merely that the respondent No.1-workman was working under the supervision of the Head Master, who is appointed by Government, is no ground to assert that there existed master and servant relationship between respondent No.1-workman and petitioner-school so as to claim benefit -- Mere supervisory control over the workman and working of the workman under the Principal employer will not create a master and servant relationship between both.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(g)(s), 17B, 25F – Termination of employee -- Master-servant relationship – Proof of -- Workman was appointed as Peon-cum-Chowkidar by Parents Teacher Association and was paid his salary out of the funds of the Parents Teacher Association -- Merely that the respondent No.1-workman working in the school is not good enough to hold that there existed master and servant relationship between respondent No.1-workman and petitioner-school -- Respondent No.1-workman never agitated his claim qua termination against the Parents Teacher Association, which was the employer -- Award against School passed by the Industrial Tribunal set aside -- Financial benefit already given to the respondent No.1-workman u/s 17-B of the 1947 Act will not be recovered.

(Para 1, 8-12)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Recruitment initiated – Advertisement made – Non-challenge to – Effect of -- Private respondent did not challenge the advertisement in its entirety (nor did anyone else) -- Hence, the advertisement holds the field and it is only under this advertisement that the respective rights of the appellant and private respondent can be determined.

(Para 15)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Recruitment initiated – Advertisement made – Midway change – Permissibility of -- Recruitment process had begun with the publication of the advertisement calling for applications and the process ends with filling of the vacancies -- The selection process had begun and midway changes could not have taken place – Held, once an eligibility criteria was declared by means of a fresh Advertisement, the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, as the same would tantamount to ‘changing the rules of the game, after the game is played’.

(Para 16, 21)

C. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Advertisement made – Qualified candidate – Right of -- Once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ as per advertisement, the appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her category who could be appointed as she is the only SC woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the post of DSP.

(Para 23)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33, 33A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Loss of confidence in employee – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Illegal discharge/ dismissal from service – Effect of -- Findings with regard to the loss of confidence in an employee can be returned by the learned Labour Court provided it is pleaded and proved by the employer that :

(a) the workman is holding a position of trust and confidence;

(b) by abusing such position, he commits acts which result in forfeiting the same;

(c) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be detrimental of the discipline or security of the establishment.

No such pleading that there was a loss of confidence in the employee -- Court is a slave of pleadings and adjudication has to be within the ambit of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence which is led by the parties to substantiate the pleadings --  Conclusions cannot be drawn by the Court in air on its own whims and fancies without taking into consideration the respective contentions and stand of the parties – Findings returned to this effect by learned Labour Court are perverse, bad, beyond the pleadings and not sustainable in law – Writ allowed, petitioner is deemed to have continued in service as from the date of his illegal dismissal, entitling him to all benefits available, monetary and otherwise.

(Para 16-26)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33, 33A – Loss of confidence in employee – Non-approval by Labour Court -- Discharge/ Dismissal from service – Effect upon -- If the approval sought by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not granted by the learned Labour Court, then nothing more is required to be done by the employee as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal was never passed and consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to be in continuous service, entitling him all the benefits.

(Para 24)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Three post of Steno advertised – Four additional person appointed, including appellants  -- Termination – Non-payment of salary -- State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants -- The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service -- Respondents directed to pay the salary of the appellant and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the salaries ought to have been paid to them -- Appellant would also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.1 lakh.

(Para 4.1, 12, 13-17)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delayed submission of Medical bill for re-imbursement of deceased employee beyond 90 days – Rejection of – Permissibility of -- If an employee has died during treatment, his wife/ heirs should not be harassed for technical reasons -- Such a rule that prescribes for submitting medical bills for reimbursement may at times be put to strict compliance where employee is alive but in case of heirs where employee has died during treatment, such rules should not be permitted to come in the way of reimbursement of genuine claims of medical bills -- Petitioner directed to submit again the medical bills within a period of four weeks, concerned respondent shall clear the same as per relevant rules by taking appropriate decision within a period of two weeks.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001, Rule 24(4) -- Scuffle between judicial officers -- Discharge of Probationer Judicial Officers – Rule of natural justice -- Order of discharge of services of petitioners as probationer are clearly stigmatic which required inquiry prior to discharge from service -- Since the order of discharge of service of petitioners is punitive in nature, the maxim of Audi alterm partem was required to be followed prior to their discharge.

(Para 7, 94)

A. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 4, 5 -- Forfeiture of gratuity – Initial appointment by fraud – Conviction in criminal proceedings not necessary -- Petitioner supressed his actual date of birth -- Failure of the employer to initiate a criminal proceeding on the fraud employed by way of the fabricated/ forged certificate produced for the purpose of employment, does not militate against the forfeiture -- No conviction in a criminal proceeding is necessitated, if the misconduct alleged & proved constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude -- Appointment itself being illegal, there is no question of the terminated employee seeking fruits of his employment by way of gratuity – Decision of the PSU forfeiting entire gratuity, upheld.

(Para 13-15)

B. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 4, 5 -- Forfeiture of gratuity -- Misappropriation of meagre amounts -- It is trite that even if minimal amounts are misappropriated it would constitute a misconduct warranting termination -- However, on the question of forfeiture of gratuity, Appointing Authority should have taken a more sympathetic approach -- Appointing Authority directed to limit the forfeiture to 25% of the gratuity payable and release the balance amounts.

(Para 15)

Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3, 4A -- Compensation to employee – Interest thereupon -- Interest liability arises on default of the employer, in paying the admitted compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due and if there is such default, necessarily interest shall run at the rate provided -- Interest runs from the date of the accident -- 12% simple interest per annum necessarily has to be applied.

(Para 5, 6)

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (13 of 1985), Section 21 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5, 14 – Condonation of delay in OA – Time spent in wrong Forum/ RTI information – Consideration of -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable for condonation of delay -- It is a settled law that if a wrong remedy has been taken up by any litigant, the period spent for pursuing the wrong remedy can be condoned, in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act -- O.A. field after obtaining documents under the RTI Act said to be bona fide -- Petitioner had suffered serious accident and had also subsequently remained hospitalized on account of heart ailment – Delay deserved to be condoned -- Since the order of termination is an issue before the Court, the same has to be examined on merits – Matter remitted back to Central Administrative Tribunal and directed to decide the OA afresh on merits.

(Para 9-12)

A. Constitution of India, Article 245 -- functus officio -- Rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio -- The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 42)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226, 245 -- Statutory rules – Rule of natural justice – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of -- It is a well-settled principle of law that while administrative actions and statutory rules that impact citizens’ rights are subject to judicial review, the notion that the State must provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power is fundamentally flawed.

(Para 45)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 -- Part time sweeper – Regular pay scale -- Appellants were appointed on the ground of recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by Collector, against the vacant posts as part time sweepers at Collector’s prescribed rates -- Appellants were appointed for posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under Special Recruitment Drive -- They are covered under Clause 6 of the Circular dated 10.05.1984 since they have completed three years and fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular to grant revised pay-scale -- Designation as ‘part-time’ sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless -- Appellants fighting this battle for regular pay-scale since 2016 and they have extended their service to the State for substantial years -- But more importantly they have proven that their situation is covered under the State issued Circular and Rules – Held, it confers upon them a legal right to avail regular pay-scale.

(Para 13-18)

Constitution of India Article 14, 16, 309 – Appointment of teachers -- Change in eligibility criteria – Permissibility of -- Advertisement was issued on 19.07.2023 and the eligibility criteria was set out as per 2022 Recruitment Rules -- By which the candidates must have passed Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Jharkhand – By notice dated 10.01.2024, applications were called from the residents of Jharkhand possessing CTET and STET qualification between 19.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 -- Amendments in 2022 Recruitment Rules were brought on 29.01.2024 with intent to give statutory backing for changing the eligibility in the on-going recruitment process -- Later, the amendment in the advertisement was made --  Held, this amount to change the rules of game after the game has begun – Therefore, the entire action on the part of the State Government is arbitrary and contrary to the law -- Revised eligibility criteria introduced cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process.

(Para 57, 58)

Service matter – Promotion exercise from Scale-II to Scale-III -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Fundamental defect in enquiry -- Appellant’s result was kept in abeyance in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings -- Defect was accepted by the Bank when they did not press the appeal -- Appellant should be granted all monetary benefits since the fundamental defect in the enquiry was due to no fault of the appellant – Monetary benefits granted with 6% interest p.a.

(Para 5, 6, 30, 32)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Regularization Policy of the year 1996 dated 18.3.1996 (Haryana) – Regularization of daily wages employee -- Policy of regularization is applicable in rem and benefits admissible to each individual, who is similarly placed, had to be extended by the respondent-State without any discrimination -- Such employees ought not be forced to seek identical reliefs by way of filing separate writ petitions and that a holistic approach is required to be taken by the State Agencies as well as employer to extend the benefits to all similarly placed persons irrespective of the fact whether they have taken recourse to institution of a separate litigation or not.

(Para 23-25)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Regularization Policy of the year 1996 dated 18.3.1996 (Haryana) – Regularization of daily wages employee -- Dealy and laches – Arrears of monetary benefits – Restriction upon -- Certain other persons approached this Court for seeking the benefit in the year 2014, which such writ petitions were allowed in the year 2022 -- The issue of delay and laches/ estoppel did not stand in the way of extending the said benefits, the monetary benefits restricted to a period of 38 months prior to filing of the writ petition(s) to balance the equities – Petitioners held entitled for all consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay and seniority -- However, the financial benefits restricted upto 38 months prior to the filing of the present writ petition.

(Para 24-29)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Promotion to Tracer -- Negative equality – Permissibility of – As per Rules, the post of Tracer is to be filled up to 100% by way of direct recruitment -- While referring to two communications appointing two as Tracer on promotion, the petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14, namely the discrimination – Held, Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same -- A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules -- It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality.

(Para 30, 31)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Dismissal of judicial officer – Probation -- Opportunity of hearing -- Foundation of the order dispensing with petitioner's service is the complaint filed by his former wife and the report submitted by the Administrative Judge --  Committee relied upon the report of the Administrative Judge -- Petitioner was never issued any charge sheet – Petitioner claims that he was not even supplied copy of the complaint or the statement of his former wife recorded by the Registrar General, he was called in the office of the Registrar General and was asked to give his response there and then -- In the Annual Confidential Reports with respect to years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, he was rated as 'Good Officer' -- District Judge also rated the petitioner as a 'Good Officer' -- Report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner is also without granting him an opportunity of being heard --  Substantially, it can be concluded, the report of the Administrative Judge is based on the complaint filed by the petitioner's former wife – Petitioner ordered to be reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and seniority -- However, the respondent shall have the liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

(Para 4.1)

Constitution of India, Article 309(2) – Appointment based upon Executive orders -- Law is settled that in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken.

(Para 12, 13)

Constitution of India, Article 320 -- Selection process – Increase in number of vacancies -- Public Service Commission – Role of -- Primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the selection process for ensuring transparency and merit-based recruitment -- Determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government, which is the employer -- Government’s needs evolved, and additional vacancies arose -- It is unreasonable for the KPSC to deny the Government’s request to expand the rank list to include these vacancies, particularly when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification -- Argument that such an expansion would undermine the autonomy of the KPSC is misplaced -- KPSC directed to expand the rank list under the 2014 notification to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government.

(Para 17-21)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 309 – 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana -- Compassionate appointment – Right of -- Said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness --  Three years from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right -- Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father -- Claim rightly rejected by the respondent State.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Equality – Conferred some rights upon others, wrongfully -- Effect of -- No direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable -- Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea -- The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again -- Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.

(Para 11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Recruitment process -- Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies.

(Para 42(1))

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 -- Eligibility criteria – Change in midway – Permissibility of -- Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit -- Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.

(Para 42(2))

C. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Select list – Right to be appointed -- Decision in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220  -- Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the Select List -- The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues.

(Para 42(3))

D. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 – Recruitment rules/ procedure – Deviation from – Permissibility of -- Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved -- Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility -- However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps.

(Para 42(4(5))

E. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 –  Select list – Right to be appointment -- Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment -- State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies -- However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.

(Para 42(6)

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 2(12) -- Factory – ESI contribution -- Amendment of 1989 – Effect of -- Dispute relates to demand raised by appellant Corporation for ESI contribution for the time period w.e.f. April, 1983 to April, 1984 -- Prior to Amending Act of 1989, the mandate of the statute was that the factory means any premises including the precincts employing 20 or more persons -- Number of persons employed being less than 20, the premises of the respondent would not fall within the ambit of ‘factory’ as adumbrated u/s 2(12) prior to Amending Act of 1989 – ESI Court rightly held that respondent was not covered under the ESI Act prior to 1989-the period for which demand was raised – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 13-19)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Promotion of employee – Departmental proceedings – Effect of -- Departmental proceedings can be said to have been initiated only upon issuance of the charge-memo/ charge-sheet and not prior thereto -- In case of initiation of departmental proceedings against an employee as on date of consideration of his case for promotion by the DPC, the sealed covered procedure is required to be adopted -- Said sealed cover is to be opened after culmination of the departmental proceedings.

(Para 4(ii))

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Departmental proceedings – Withdrawal of promotion – Permissibility of -- Charge-memo issued to the petitioner on 01.04.2023, whereas, the DPC had already recommended petitioner’s name for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector on 21.03.2023 -- Formal order promoting the petitioner on accrual of vacancies was passed on 02.08.2023 – Order dated 24.08.2023, withdrawing petitioner’s promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector is not in consonance with law.

(Para 4(iii))

C. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 11, 14, 16 – Departmental proceedings for minor punishment – Withholding of promotion – Permissibility of -- Charge-memo was not issued to the petitioner for imposition of major penalties under Rule 14 -- Promotion cannot be withheld on account of employer’s intention to initiate departmental proceedings for imposition of minor penalty upon an employee.

(Para 4(iv))

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Contractual employee -- Regularization of service -- Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in 2005 on contract basis -- Service of the petitioner was regularized in the year, 2012 -- Petitioner held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. Covered matter, Vikram Singh’s case 2023 :HHC: 13114 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19595.

(Para 7)

A. Service matter -- Retirement of employee -- Leave encashment – Extension of service -- Carry forward of leave encashment -- Employee retired at the age of 58 years, entitled for maximum of 300 days of leave encashment -- Employee could not apply for extension only to adjust the unutilized earned leaves as only encashment of 300 days is admissible -- Petitioner availed 29 days of leave hence, 21 days leave which is more than the 8 days leave admissible during the extension period, same is to be deducted from the total kitty of 300 days leave.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Service matter -- Delay in retiral benefits – Interest thereupon -- Petitioner retired from service after availing the benefit of extension on 28.02.2017 but her retiral benefits have been released on 27.06.2017 without there being any impediment -- Petitioner held entitled for the grant of benefit of interest on the delayed release of her pensionary benefits @ 6% per annum from the date the same became due till the actual payment of the same.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Promotion during pendency of criminal case -- DPC – Charge-sheet thereafter – Putting the result in sealed cover – Legality of -- Disciplinary/ criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court -- Sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/ charge-sheet -- Pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

-- Charge sheet was filed by CBI, after completion of investigation on 25th October, 2008, whereas the DPC to consider the promotion of Additional Commissioners of Income Tax was convened on 22nd February, 2007, wherein the sealed cover procedure was adopted qua the respondent.

-- It is thus clear that the charge sheet against the respondent was filed well after the meeting of the DPC was convened.

Hence, it could not be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC was convened -- Therefore, the move on the part of DPC to resort to the sealed cover procedure was unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law -- The ‘Sealed Cover’ wherein the assessment of the respondent was considered by the DPC was opened in court -- Letter shows that the DPC assessed the respondent to be ‘FIT’ for promotion -- Consequential steps in light of the above recommendations shall follow.

(Para 24-29)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Public appointments – Waiting list for one year – Visually impaired category -- In case the appointments are not offered to the candidates for more than a period one year, the purpose of preparation of waiting panel will be rendered useless -- It will be providing a handle to such authorities to act arbitrarily -- Respondents cannot be allowed the benefit of their own wrongs, more particularly when a serious prejudice to the right of the appellants is the consequence -- Appeal allowed, fresh advertisement qua visually imparted category quashed, respondents directed to fill up the vacancies from the waiting list.

(Para 3, 14-20)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Regularization of employee – Retrospective regularisation at par with junior -- Merely because High Court or the Supreme Court had not fixed any date for grant of benefit of regularization to the petitioners, the State Government is not absolved from its duty to grant the petitioner benefits at par with similarly situated persons -- State Cabinet has taken a decision to grant benefit of regularization to the petitioners prospectively, the same cannot be a valid reason to discriminate the petitioners.

(Para 20)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Regularization of Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) -- Intelligible differentia – All the Incumbents under the PAT, GVU and Para Teachers Schemes formed a single class, keeping in view the object behind their appointments and treatment given to them by the State Government -- Exclusion of petitioners by not conferring upon them the benefit of regularization on completion of 8/10 years of service, as has been done in the case of GVU and Para Teachers, amounts to creation of a class without there being any intelligible differentia -- Since, the respondents have already granted such benefit to the Para Teachers w.e.f. 18.12.2014, the respondents directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from that date i.e. 18.12.2014.

(Para 21, 22)

Uttarakhand Government Servants (Appeal & Discipline) Rules, 2003 --  Promotion from Chief assistant to Administrative officer – Departmental enquiry was pending at the time of consideration – Result of promotional post was kept in sealed cover – In departmental enquiry ‘Warning’ issued -- Sealed envelope of the petitioner for his promotion is not being opened by the respondents – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Appointing Authority to open the sealed envelope of the petitioner’s promotion within a period of one week, if petitioner is promoted, he shall be immediately given promotion from his due date, as per law.

(Para 1, 3-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Minor penalty -- Censure  -- Promotion – Right of -- Awarding of censure, which may be a minor penalty, is a blameworthy factor and is a reason good enough to deny promotion to an employee -- Penalty, whether it is minor or major, is inflicted upon an employee for committing misconduct and an employee, who is found guilty of misconduct, is not entitled to be promoted.         

(Para 12)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309 -- Feeder cadre – Promotional cadre – Whether PayScale can be same -- Sub Inspector is a promotion post from the feeder post of Panchayat Secretary – By revision, the pay scale of Panchayat Secretary was brought at par with the pay scale available to the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 01.01.2006 -- No revision of pay was given to the Sub Inspectors -- It is more than settled that the pay scale of promotional post has to be higher than the feeder post – Finance department rejected the proposal consecutively made by the administrative department without assigning any reason – Writ petition allowed, the respondents directed to revise the pay scale and to pay them entire arrears along with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which the arrears shall entail interest @ 9% per annum.

(Para 9-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 300A, 309 – Leave encashment – Akin to property -- Merger of U.P. Basic Education Board to State of Uttarakhand -- Leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is property -- Depriving a person of his property without any valid statutory provision would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India -- Leave encashment paid on account of unutilized leave is not a bounty -- If an employee has earned it and the employee has chosen to accumulate his Earned Leave to his credit, then encashment becomes his right -- Writ allowed, a mandamus issued commanding the respondents to pay Leave Encashment of Earned Leave to the petitioners immediately, in accordance with law.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Personal Assistant Cadre Employees’ Service Rules 2018, Rule 20 --  Procedure for Appointment by Direct Recruitment on Group ‘C’ Post Rules, 2008, Rule 5(4) – Appointment of Personal Assistant/ Stenographer -- Carry forward of posts – Procedure of -- Total 152 vacancies were advertised and only 110 candidates were selected -- 42 vacancies are still available – Respondent/ Commission has list of 1830 candidates in order of merit -- By applying the ratio of 1:4 i.e. 42 x 4=168 candidates can still be called for typing and shorthand test from the said list – Writ allowed, respondent-Commission directed to call the candidates, who fall in the list of 1830 candidates in the ratio of 1:4 whose names are there in the list after 648th candidate for supplying 42 vacancies on the post of Stenographer/Personal Assistant in the order of merit till the entire remaining 42 vacancies are filled or list of 1830 candidates is exhausted, whichever is earlier.

(Para 2, 3, 12-14)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 18(4), 22(4) – Transfer of employee on administrative ground -- Adverse material has not been confronted to petitioner/ employee – Writ petitions disposed of by permitting petitioners to make representation to the Secretary, who shall look into the matter and take decision as per law within three weeks thereafter – Status quo, qua, posting of petitioners ordered to be maintained till then.

(Para 5-7)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 18(4), 22(4) – Transfer of employee on administrative grounds -- Petitioner never confronted with the complaint – Petitioners to move a representation to the Secretary -- Till the representation is decided, the impugned transfer order stayed.

(Para 3-7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Pension for her own service – Special family pension – Right of -- Clubbing of -- Benefit of special family cannot be rejected on the ground that she is getting pension on account of her retirement – It cannot be clubbed with special family pension to which she was entitled on account of death of her husband in a terrorist attack -- Respondent directed to release special family pension.

(Para 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ – Delay and laches – Seniority list challenged after 13 years – Petitioner is seeking entitlement to agitate his belated claim on the strength of directions issued by the Court in other case -- Assertion of petitioner that he has a fresh cause of action for filing the instant petition after judgment cannot be sustained -- Unexplained delay and laches in invoking Article 226 jurisdiction has repeatedly been held to be a serious impediment for grant of relief -- Claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and cannot be entertained – Writ dismissed.

(Para 11-23)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Recovery of benefits already drawn – Permissibility of -- Ad-hoc appointment as Assistant Teacher (L.T Grade), on 20.09.1986 -- Services regularized on 07.08.1993 -- After calculating ad-hoc period Selection Grade was sanctioned on 20.09.1996 – By the impugned orders dated 08.12.2017 and 05.09.2019, respondent-State cancelled the payment of Selection Grade to the petitioner -- Writ petition disposed of, with the observations that the benefit, if any, granted to the petitioner shall not be recovered -- Amount of recovery made from the petitioner, if any, shall also be paid back to the petitioner.

(Para 2-8)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1992, Rule 11 – Unequal promotion Quota – Principle of Intelligible defferentia -- Impugned Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Director provide for 60% quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters and 40% to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Lecturers for being placed as Deputy Directors – No reasonable classification to the extent of providing unequal quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of lecturers and Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters is in clear violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- Rule 11 as amended in 2005 quashed to that extent.

(Para 12, 17-20)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 13(6) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee --  Petitioner is feeling difficulty in serving at Government ITI Dugadda, he wants to be transferred at a suitable place particularly in District Haridwar and made a representation -- Writ petition disposed of, respondent No.2 directed to take a decision on petitioner’s representation by a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of one week.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 -- RGPSM’s General Service Conditions, Clause 4 -- Appointment in Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan / SSA -- Termination of service/ contract – Non-renewal of contract -- Appellant topped the revised Merit List, leading to her appointment -- While serving complaint(s) against her : (i) not punctual in attending to her duties, and; (ii) not correctly reported with regard to the events in the hostel -- She, inter alia, frankly admits to being late on occasion, but to compensate for her late-coming, she used to sit till late evening in the office for completion of work.

-- Clause 4 makes it clear that ordinarily, for inefficiency, one month’s notice is sufficient -- The Clause also makes it clear that if someone is found to have indulged in “undesirable activities”, the Mission Director was competent to terminate such person’s services “with immediate effect”.

-- Ld. Single Judge of High Court quashed the order holding that the termination orders being stigmatic in nature, relating to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, the same could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry.

Respondents have placed themselves in a Catch-22 situation – If it is a case of termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic, then one month’s notice was required to be issued to the appellant, which was not done – If impugned order to be seen as falling under the latter part of Clause 4, it would be stigmatic -- Impugned order does visit the appellant with evil consequences and would create hurdles for her re further employment – Order of Ld. Single Judge, upheld, appellant held entitled to all consequential benefits including notional continuation in service at par with other similarly-situated employees, but with the back wages restricted to 50% -- In view of the long passage of time, liberty denied to the respondents to proceed afresh against the appellant as was granted by the learned Single Judge.

(Para 12, 30-36)

Uttarakhand Regularization of Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Rules, 2013 – Regularisation of daily wages employees – Petitioners completed more than 14 years of service -- Services of the petitioners can be regularized under Regularization Rules of 2013 -- Respondent cannot take other plea to deprive the petitioners of their right to claim regularization with the respondent-Department -- Writ petitions allowed, a writ of mandamus issued commanding the respondents to consider the case of petitioners of all these writ petitions for regularization.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification in advertisement – Recruitment Rules – Applicability of -- Bachelor degree in Agricultural Engineering added as one of the qualification for appointment to the post in question after issuance of advertisement -- Petitioner cannot claim benefit of such changed qualification, and his eligibility has to be seen with reference to the Rules as were prevailing on the date of commencement of selection process.

(Para 6)

B. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification as per rules – Subsequent amendment – Effect of -- As per the recruitment Rules in vogue at the time of advertisement, a candidate with Bachelor degree in Agriculture or possessing any qualification recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto, alone is eligible for appointment to the post in question -- Subsequent amendment in the Rules will not improve the case of petitioner.

(Para 7)

C. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification – Permitting candidate without qualification -- Estoppel  against Public Service Commission -- Eligibility of a candidate is scrutinised at the time of interview or thereafter at the time of appointment --  There cannot be estoppel against statute -- Recruitment Rules are statutory in nature and any person, who is not qualified as per the recruitment Rules, cannot claim estoppel against the selecting body i.e. Public Service Commission by contending that after permitting him to appear in the selection process, his candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that his qualification is not as per the requirement of the Rules.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dismissal from service – Acquittal in criminal case – Right to re-instatement -- In departmental proceedings petitioner found guilty of misappropriation of 80 Urea bags and embezzlement of Rs.29,656/- and award was passed against petitioner – No appeal/ revision filed against by petitioner – Held, acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement -- No ground to interfere with impugned dismissal order.

(Para 2-4)