***

Service Law -- Minor Penalty -- Effective Date -- Promotion -- Minor penalty imposed in substitution of termination relates back to the date of the original termination -- Promotion granted pursuant to Review DPC must carry all consequential benefits and cannot be restricted to notional promotion alone.

***

Quashing of Contempt Proceedings -- Contempt proceedings quashed on the condition of payment of costs of Rs. 10 lacs to defray prolonged litigation, considering the appellant's promising career was cut short due to the authorities' callous indifference and apathetic pen-pushing.

***

A. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 -- Disciplinary Proceedings -- Minor Penalty -- Effective Date -- Relation Back -- Promotion -- Appellant, an Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force, was removed from service on 10.07.1995 -- Pursuant to prolonged litigation, the Division Bench set aside the second order of termination dated 16.10.2018 and directed imposition of the minor penalty already determined by the Disciplinary Authority, namely, reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for three years, without cumulative effect and without adversely affecting pension -- Held, the direction to impose the minor penalty necessarily related back to the date of the original termination, i.e. 10.07.1995, and the penalty stood exhausted on 10.07.1998 -- Consequently, promotion as Deputy Commandant, granted pursuant to the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), could not be confined to notional promotion but carried all consequential service benefits from the date the appellant became entitled to promotion under the original DPC -- Appellant held entitled to entire back wages from the date of entitlement to promotion as Deputy Commandant -- If such date of promotion fell after 30.11.2012, the date on which the Division Bench directed reinstatement, the appellant would be entitled to entire back wages from such date till retirement -- If the date of promotion fell prior to 30.11.2012, the period prior thereto would remain notional and back wages would be payable from 30.11.2012 onwards, with consequential refixation of pay, increments, retirement benefits and arrears of pension.

(Paras 12,14, 17-22)

B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Sections 12 and 19 -- Quashing of Contempt Proceedings -- Imposition of Costs -- Appellant's promising career was cut short, rendering him unemployed for more than two decades due to the authorities' callous indifference to the repeated directions of the High Court and apathetic pen-pushing -- Contempt proceedings are quashed on the condition of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as costs to the appellant defraying the costs of the prolonged litigation.

(Paras 18, 23)

***

Recruitment -- Absence of mandatory officials in Board meeting approving appointments does not invalidate entire recruitment where selection process was otherwise valid.

***

Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984) -- Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003 – Rules 3 & 15 – Recruitment and appointment -- Non-compliance with Rule 3 -- Absence of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED from Board meeting approving appointments -- Effect of -- Though presence and concurrence of said officials is mandatory, selected candidates having no role in constitution of the appointing authority or conduct of its meetings cannot be penalised for lapse attributable to authorities -- Where appointments were preceded by public advertisement and regular selection process and there was no allegation regarding eligibility, fraud, impersonation, malpractice or manipulation against appointees, appointments could not be invalidated solely on account of procedural defect in decision-making process relating to appointment -- Cancellation of appointments set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration by duly constituted Board in accordance with Rule 3.

(Paras 38-66)

***

Compassionate appointment — Rule 23(1) of Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 applies only to compassionate financial assistance and not to compassionate appointment — Claim for compassionate appointment cannot be kept in abeyance merely because criminal proceedings concerning death of employee are pending against another family member.

***

A. Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, Rules 5(1)(f), 5(1)(g) and 23(1) -- Compassionate appointment -- Compassionate financial assistance -- Widow accused of murder of deceased employee -- Rule 23(1) expressly governs only compassionate financial assistance -- Neither its language nor marginal heading extends to compassionate appointment -- Reading compassionate appointment into Rule 23(1) would amount to judicial legislation -- Purposive interpretation cannot be employed to introduce words consciously omitted by rule-making authority -- Claim for compassionate appointment cannot be deferred by invoking Rule 23(1) -- Children's claim for compassionate appointment cannot automatically remain suspended till determination of widow's claim.

(Paras 23-39, 42, 46, 48, 50)

B. Service Law -- Compassionate appointment -- Nature and object -- Compassionate appointment is neither a vested nor a heritable right -- It is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee facing financial hardship -- Entitlement remains subject to fulfilment of eligibility conditions prescribed under the governing Rules.

(Paras 20-22)

C. Interpretation of Statutes -- Plain meaning rule -- Purposive interpretation -- Purposive construction cannot be invoked to override clear and unambiguous statutory language or to supply words consciously omitted by Legislature or rule-making authority.

(Paras 25-26)

D. Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, Rules 5(1)(f), 5(1)(g) and 23(1) -- Compassionate appointment -- Compassionate financial assistance -- Legislative omission -- Rules provide for suspension of compassionate financial assistance during pendency of criminal proceedings but contain no analogous restriction regarding compassionate appointment -- Court cannot fill such legislative gap through interpretative process -- Matter lies within legislative domain -- State Government advised to consider suitable amendment to the Rules of 2019.

(Paras 43-45, 48(vi))

***

Claim for grant-in-aid arrears pertaining to 2008-2009, raised through writ petition in 2026, held barred by delay and laches -- Mere submission of representation does not revive stale claim -- Plea of continuing wrong held inapplicable where no amount became due within three years preceding institution of writ petition.

***

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Grant-in-aid -- Recovery of arrears allegedly due between 11-08-2008 and 31-03-2009 -- Writ petition filed in 2026 seeking release of amount with interest -- Mere submission of representation in 2025 not furnishing fresh cause of action -- Plea of continuing wrong rejected -- No amount having become due within three years before filing of writ petition, claim held hopelessly delayed -- Writ petition dismissed on ground of delay and laches.

(Para 3-8)

***

Transfer of Patwari from one district to another after conversion of cadre into State Cadre cannot be interfered with merely on speculative apprehension regarding future service conditions.

***

Constitution of India, Art. 226 -- Service Law -- Transfer -- Patwari -- State Cadre -- Inter-district transfer -- Challenge to transfer on apprehension that future service conditions, pay or service interests may be adversely affected after joining transferred station -- Apprehension held misconceived and speculative -- Terms and conditions of service of Patwaris throughout State being identical even prior to cadre conversion -- No illegality in transfer from one district to another after constitution of State Cadre -- Any future adverse decision affecting service rights can be independently challenged at appropriate stage -- Transfer order upheld.

(Paras 7-9)

***

Pension -- Temporary status casual labourers – Entitled to pensionary benefits even without formal regularisation.

***

A. Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 -- Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965,  Rule 10(1-B) -- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 -- Pension -- Temporary status casual labourers -- Formal regularisation -- Casual labourers conferred temporary status and, after completion of three years, treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees -- Benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees held to include pensionary benefits -- Entitlement to pension not dependent upon formal regularisation -- Temporary status casual labourers held entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in absence of regularisation.

(Paras 52 to 76)

B. Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, Clauses 6, 7 and 8 -- Pension -- Interpretation of beneficial scheme -- Expression "after regularisation" occurring in Clause 6 -- Scope -- Clause 6 does not create pensionary entitlement but confers additional benefit of counting 50% of service rendered under temporary status towards retirement benefits upon regularisation -- Absence of regularisation not extinguishing underlying entitlement to pension -- Scheme to be construed harmoniously and in a beneficial manner.

(Paras 47 to 49, 56 and 57)

C. Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule 10(1-B) -- Pension -- Temporary Government servants -- Qualifying service -- Temporary status casual labourers treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees -- Upon completion of qualifying service of ten years, entitled to superannuation pension, gratuity and family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 -- Pensionary benefits cannot be denied merely on basis of nomenclature or absence of regularisation.

(Paras 70 to 75)

D. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 38, 39, 43 and 300A -- Pension -- Property -- Social welfare measure -- State as model employer -- Pension not a bounty but a vested constitutional right and property within meaning of Article 300A -- Financial burden no ground to deny pensionary benefits earned through long years of service.

(Paras 39 to 41, 74)

E. Service Law -- Delay and laches -- Pensionary benefits -- Continuing cause of action -- Claim for pension cannot be defeated solely on ground of delay -- However, arrears restricted to three years and two months preceding date of filing of Original Applications before Tribunal.

(Para 81)

***

Medical reimbursement -- Emergency treatment in non-empanelled hospital -- Genuine medical claims cannot be defeated by technicalities, restrictive reimbursement policies or outdated norms.

***

Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Medical reimbursement -- Non-empanelled hospitals -- Emergency treatment -- Reimbursement policy (Haryana) -- Policies framed to secure healthcare and social welfare benefits to employees and pensioners must be interpreted in a humane, liberal and purposive manner -- Genuine reimbursement claims cannot be rejected merely because treatment was obtained from a non-empanelled hospital during medical exigencies -- Beneficial schemes should advance the cause of human welfare rather than be defeated by procedural technicalities.

(Paras 4 to 11)

***

Recruitment -- Eligibility criteria -- Candidate must possess prescribed qualification on cut-off date specified in advertisement -- Qualification acquired after last date for submission of applications cannot be considered.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 -- Service Law -- Recruitment -- Eligibility -- Cut-off date -- Advertisement prescribing last date for submission of online applications as cut-off date for acquiring essential educational qualification -- Challenge to validity -- Candidate not possessing requisite educational qualification on prescribed cut-off date -- Subsequent acquisition of qualification held immaterial -- Fixation of cut-off date held neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, having rational nexus with certainty, uniformity and finality in recruitment process -- Terms of advertisement binding equally upon all candidates and not amenable to relaxation in favour of an individual applicant -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 4 to 5)

***

Pay Commission -- National Health Mission (NHM) employees -- 7th Pay Commission -- Denial of revised pay scales despite approved Service Bye-laws and parity with HSSPP employees held arbitrary -- Revision of pay scales with arrears and interest directed.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 226 & 227 -- National Health Mission (NHM) -- Contractual employees -- 7th Pay Commission -- Legitimate expectation -- Service Bye-laws, 2018 -- Contractual NHM employees claimed revised pay scales under the 7th Pay Commission on the basis of approved Service Bye-laws framed on the pattern of Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojana Parishad (HSSPP) -- State had already extended benefits of the 6th Pay Commission under the same framework -- Having consistently implemented the Service Bye-laws and maintained parity, State could not arbitrarily deny revised pay scales under the 7th Pay Commission -- Administrative delay or inter-departmental indecision could not defeat rights flowing from approved Service Bye-laws -- Denial of revised pay scales held arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 -- State, being a model employer, could not approbate and reprobate after acting upon the Bye-laws for years -- Respondents directed to grant revised pay scales under the 7th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2016, together with arrears restricted to 38 months preceding institution of the writ petitions and interest @ 6% per annum.

(Paras 20 to 39)

***

Promotion -- Non-communication of ACRs -- Destruction of service records during pendency of litigation -- Award of fractional marks without enabling provision -- Adverse inference against employer -- Prejudice in consideration for promotion -- Entitlement to notional promotion and pensionary benefits.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 -- Service Law – Promotion -- Non-communication of ACRs -- Destruction of service records -- Appellant's ACR entries were never communicated despite specific request -- Relevant service records/ ACRs weeded out during pendency of judicial proceedings though required to be preserved till conclusion of litigation -- Selection Committee awarded appellant 19.5 marks though promotion policy contemplated only whole-number grading and no provision for fractional marks existed -- Adverse inference liable to be drawn against respondents -- Cumulative effect of non-supply of ACRs, destruction of service records and unexplained award of fractional marks established prejudice in consideration for promotion -- Appellant held entitled to notional promotion to HAG grade and consequential refixation of pensionary benefits -- Arrears of salary for period prior to retirement declined.

(Paras 13 to 19)

***

Family pension -- Second wife entitled to full family pension if first wife predeceased employee and no eligible claimant exists

***

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Rule 6.17(4), Notes 1 and 2 -- Family pension -- Second wife -- Apportionment of pension -- First wife of deceased employee having predeceased him -- Petitioner married deceased employee after death of first wife -- No eligible minor child surviving from first marriage -- Family pension being estate of legal heirs -- State cannot retain share of family pension on ground that no eligible claimant exists -- Rule providing for apportionment applicable only where there are multiple eligible claimants -- Petitioner being sole surviving widow held entitled to full family pension -- Impugned memo denying 100% family pension set aside -- Respondents directed to release full family pension with arrears from date of death of employee along with interest @ 6% per annum.

(Paras 9 to 13)

Recruitment -- Appointment of Principal -- Waitlisted candidate -- Recommended for appointment in one college but failed to join -- Fresh recommendation for another college on basis of subsequent vacancy held impermissible -- Appointment contrary to statutory scheme.

***

Recruitment -- Repeal and savings -- Enforcement of new selection statute -- After repeal of old Act, authorities could not revive old select list or issue fresh recommendation under repealed provisions.

***

Locus standi -- Officiating Principal -- Challenge to illegal appointment -- Officiating Principal competent to challenge appointment made contrary to statutory provisions -- Objection regarding locus standi held insignificant where action of authorities was ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction.

***

A. Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (16 of 1980), Sections 12, 13(3), 13(4) and 14 -- Appointment of Principal -- Waitlisted candidate -- Change of posting -- Appellant, a waitlisted candidate, was recommended for appointment as Principal in specific college but did not join on account of personal reasons -- Thereafter sought appointment in another college against subsequent vacancy -- Fresh recommendation in favour of appellant held contrary to statutory scheme and law laid down in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma case, (1998) 3 SCC 45 -- Appointment rightly quashed.

(Paras 18 to 23)

B. Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (15 of 2023), Sections 10, 11 and 31 -- Repeal and savings -- Validity of old select list -- Old Act stood repealed on enforcement of New Act -- Only recommendation already issued under Old Act could survive under saving clause -- Authorities could not revive old select list or issue fresh recommendation under repealed provisions.

(Paras 16 to 24)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Locus standi -- Officiating Principal -- Challenge to illegal appointment -- Officiating Principal competent to challenge recommendation and appointment made contrary to statutory provisions -- Where action of authorities is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction, objection regarding locus standi loses significance.

(Paras 27, 28)

Recruitment -- Regular appointment -- Advertisement issued for regular post -- Candidate found suitable and selected through regular selection process -- Appointment of candidate on contractual basis alone, without assigning any reason, held arbitrary and discriminatory.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 14 & 16 -- Appointment -- Regular vacancy -- Advertisement issued for regular appointment of Assistant Professor -- Appellant possessed requisite qualifications and was selected through same selection process as other candidates who were granted regular appointments -- Selection Committee recommended appellant alone for contractual appointment without assigning any reason -- No material on record justifying differential treatment -- Acceptance of the contractual appointment does not estop a challenge to the illegality or irregularity of the selection process -- Denial of regular appointment held patently illegal and discriminatory -- Orders of High Court set aside -- Respondent-Institute directed to appoint appellant on regular basis with continuity of service but without financial benefits.

(Para 12 to 15)

Recruitment -- Eligibility criteria -- Relevant date for acquiring essential qualification -- Candidate must possess prescribed qualification on last date of submission of application -- Acquisition of qualification prior to examination or interview held immaterial.

***

Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, Rule 12 -- Recruitment process -- Assistant Prosecution Officer -- Advertisement required candidate to possess Degree in Law -- Respondents had not acquired LL.B. degree on last date of submission of application and were still appearing in final year examination -- Deletion of proviso to Rule 12 permitting final year candidates to apply manifested legislative intent that only candidates possessing requisite qualification on relevant date are eligible -- Press note clarifying eligibility with reference to last date of application held consistent with Rules and advertisement -- High Court erred in permitting ineligible candidates to participate in selection process on ground that qualification was acquired prior to examination -- Eligibility conditions cannot be altered by liberal interpretation to enlarge pool of candidates -- Maxim “aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”, what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly, squarely applies to the case -- Impugned judgments set aside and appeals allowed.

(Para 18 to 26)

***

Service Law -- Deputation -- Borrowing organisation liable to release leave salary and recover reimbursement from parent organisation.

***

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 7(3-A) -- Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, Schedule XVIII, Rule 12(a), Article 240-BB, 185-B -- Government Instructions -- Employee resigned after serving on deputation -- Gratuity and leave encashment withheld due to dispute between parent and borrowing organisations regarding liability -- Held, Rule 12(a) makes the parent organisation responsible for disbursement of leave-related benefits during deputation, while Government Instructions below Article 185-B require the borrowing organisation to sanction and initially release leave salary and thereafter seek reimbursement from the parent organisation -- Gratuity remains the exclusive liability of the parent organisation under Article 240-BB -- Administrative correspondence between departments cannot deprive an employee of statutory retiral benefits -- Delay in payment of gratuity attracts interest under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act at 10% per annum, while leave salary directed to carry 6% interest from the date of filing of the writ petition till realization.

(Paras 10 to 17)

***

Family pension -- Entitlement -- Second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage -- Long cohabitation and documentary evidence of marriage -- Even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act, relationship not immoral -- Entitlement to family pension upheld on principles of social justice and economic empowerment -- Appeal allowed and family pension granted.

***

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955), Section 5(i) -- Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Section 114 -- CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 50 -- Family pension to second wife -- Entitlement -- Appellant claiming family pension of deceased employee as widow -- Marriage disputed on ground of subsisting first marriage -- Evidence of affidavit of deceased, Parivar Register entry and long cohabitation produced – In Section 9 petition marriage held to be nullity -- Presumption of valid marriage drawn under Section 114 Evidence Act based on long cohabitation -- Held, even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) HMA, such relationship though illegal is not immoral -- Financially dependent partner cannot be denied relief solely on that ground -- Claim of the appellant for grant of family pension is governed by the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules -- Interpretation of pension rules to advance social justice, dignity and economic empowerment of women -- Object of family pension analogous to maintenance jurisprudence -- Deceased had treated appellant as nominee and cohabitation continued for long period -- Appellant held entitled to family pension as widow for purposes of CCS Pension Rules -- Impugned judgment set aside -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 1–5, 7–12, 14–21)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Regularisation of Part-time Sweeper since 1999 -- Retired on 31.12.2025 – Petitioner, being a part-time Sweeper and not working against any sanctioned post, is not entitled to regularization – High Court cannot issue directions for creation of posts or framing of a regularization policy – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33C(2) -- State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955, Rule 22(i)(a)(c) -- Pension -- Entitlement under Pension Fund Rules – Voluntary retirement vs voluntary abandonment of service – Appellant claimed pensionary benefits relying on Rule 22(i)(c) of Pension Fund Rules contending that he had completed more than 20 years of service – Record showed that service for purpose of pension is to be reckoned from date of confirmation and admission to Pension Fund – On calculation, service of appellant after completion of probation came to less than 20 years i.e. 19 years, 09 months and 25 days – Further, case was not of voluntary retirement but of voluntary abandonment of service as appellant remained absent for long period and services were declared voluntarily abandoned – Conditions under Rule 22(i)(c) not satisfied – Even under Rule 22(i)(a), appellant had neither completed 20 years of qualifying service nor attained age of 50 years – Hence, appellant not entitled to pension under Pension Fund Rules – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 23-26, 30-32)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review of Punishment – Scope of Interference by Courts – Normally, in exercise of the power of judicial review, courts should not interfere with the punishment imposed on a delinquent employee by the competent disciplinary authority or substitute their own judgment for that of the authority – The disciplinary authority is the best judge, interference is warranted only where the punishment is so disproportionate that it appears the disciplinary authority has “used a sledgehammer to crack a nut” – A punishment that is strikingly or shockingly disproportionate and not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Doctrine of Proportionality – Parity in punishment – Higher-ranking officer vis-à-vis subordinates – Respondent, a Senior Manager (MMGS-III), dismissed from service for misconduct, while co-delinquents (officer and gunman) were awarded lesser punishment – High Court interfered granting parity – Held, impermissible – Higher rank carries greater responsibility, trust and accountability – Therefore, harsher punishment for a higher-ranking official cannot be equated with punishment imposed on lower-ranking employees – Grant of parity solely on the ground that co-delinquents received lighter punishment is misconceived -- High Court erred in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision – Punishment of dismissal restored – Appeal allowed.

(Para 10-18)

Constitution of India, Article 16 -- Service Law – Recruitment – Constable – Physical Endurance & Measurement Test (PE&MT) – Absence on scheduled date – Effect – Advertisement stipulating that schedule of PE&MT was final and not alterable – Candidate abstained from appearing and was marked “absent” – Illness not of such nature as to warrant exceptional treatment – Mere non-consideration or non-communication of decision on representations seeking rescheduling does not confer enforceable right – Tribunal and High Court erred in directing rescheduling – Belonging to backward community not a ground to grant such relief – Sympathy or compassion cannot override fairness in public employment – Orders set aside – Appeal allowed.

(Paras 4-14)

Seventh Central Pay Commission Para 7.4.13(iv)(b) -- Service Law – Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) – Junior Engineers – Completion of four years of service in Level-8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis – Respondents denied NFU on ground that petitioners did not enter service with Grade Pay Rs.4,800/- and their entry level was Rs.4,200/- – Whether such condition can be read into the recommendation – Held, No – Only requirement for NFU is completion of four years of service in Level-8 along with seniority-cum-suitability – Introducing a requirement of entry-level Grade Pay Rs.4,800/- amounts to adding an additional condition not contemplated by the Seventh CPC recommendations – Such interpretation would defeat the benefit intended for Junior Engineers – Denial of NFU therefore not justified – Order granting benefit upheld – Civil Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11-13)

***

Promotion -- Eligibility -- Employee already working as Junior Engineer (O&M) (Civil) prior to 2020 Amendment Rules held entitled to consideration for promotion notwithstanding non-recognition of diploma obtained through part-time/distance mode.

***

Promotion -- Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) -- Delay in holding meeting -- Right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and employees cannot be made to suffer on account of failure of authorities to convene DPCs regularly and timely.

***

A. Punjab Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2020 -- Promotion -- Assistant Corporation Engineer (O&M) (Civil) -- Eligibility -- Petitioner promoted as Junior Engineer (O&M) (Civil) prior to coming into force of 2020 Amendment Rules -- Proviso to Rules specifically protected existing members of service notwithstanding educational qualification -- Respondents wrongly held petitioner ineligible on ground that diploma obtained through part-time/distance mode was not recognized -- Petitioner held entitled to consideration for promotion after completion of seven years’ service as Junior Engineer.

(Paras 11 to 14)

B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 226, 227 -- Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) -- Delay in holding DPC -- Right to be considered for promotion – Fundamental right -- DPCs required to be convened regularly and timely to avoid stagnation and ensure career progression of eligible employees -- Right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution -- Delay in convening the DPC not only causes financial loss to the concerned officers on account of delayed promotion to the next higher grade, but also adversely impacts their future career progression, as it correspondingly postpones their eligibility for further advancement – Held, respondents are mandated to hold DPCs every three months (quarterly) during every calendar year so that employees can get promotions against vacant posts in time.

(Paras 14 to 18)

***

Promotion -- Inspector of Police -- DPC -- Merit-cum-seniority -- Non-communication of “average” ACR -- Such entry cannot be relied upon for adverse effect in promotion -- Violation of principles of natural justice -- Promotion directed from date juniors were promoted with consequential benefits.

***

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Police service -- Promotion -- Inspector of Police -- DPC proceedings -- Merit-cum-seniority -- ACRs -- Non-communication -- Effect of -- Petitioner, Sub Inspector, denied promotion to Inspector as he was placed below in merit list due to deduction of one mark on basis of “average” ACR for period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 -- Said ACR not communicated to petitioner -- Held, every entry in ACR including “outstanding”, “very good”, “good” and “average” must be communicated to employee -- Non-communication of ACRs is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and principles of natural justice -- Uncommunicated ACRs cannot be relied upon for preparation of merit list by DPC -- Petitioner entitled to be considered by ignoring uncommunicated ACR -- Respondents directed to promote petitioner to post of Inspector of Police w.e.f. 31.10.2014, when juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits and notional seniority -- Writ petition allowed.

(Paras 10–12, 14–18, 21–23, 27–28)

***

Departmental proceedings -- Continuance of disciplinary proceedings after retirement -- Where disciplinary proceedings were initiated before employee attained age of superannuation and Service Regulations permit continuation of proceedings, same can continue and be brought to logical conclusion even after retirement.

***

Departmental proceedings -- Punishment after retirement -- Reduction in pay scale -- Validity -- Punishment of reduction by three stages in time scale of pay on permanent basis imposed after retirement held legally implementable.

***

Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982, Regulation 20(3)(iii) -- Punjab and Sind Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 46, 48 -- Departmental proceedings -- Superannuation -- Reduction in pay scale after retirement -- Validity -- Charge-sheet served on date of superannuation of appellant -- Departmental proceedings continued and punishment of reduction by three stages in time scale of pay on permanent basis imposed -- Contention that only action under Pension Regulations could be taken after retirement – Held, Service Regulations specifically permitted continuation of disciplinary proceedings after superannuation as if officer continued in service -- Punishment imposed capable of implementation as pension could be recomputed on basis of reduced pay scale -- No perversity in enquiry report or disciplinary action -- High Court rightly upheld punishment -- Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 14 to 22, 36 to 39)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Departments of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 -- Compassionate appointment -- Applicable policy -- Claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with rules/policy prevailing on date of death of employee -- Vested right accrued under Rules of 2003 could not be divested by subsequent Rules of 2006 having no retrospective effect -- Denial of benefit to petitioner while extending same to similarly situated person held discriminatory and violative of Article 14 -- Respondents directed to consider appointment of petitioner’s son under Rules of 2003.

(Para 4-11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Civil Services Rules, Rule 3.17A -- Part-time/Daily wages service – Pensionary benefit – Application of Old Pension Scheme -- Regularisation -- Once the petitioners have been regularized in view of perennial nature of services, which they have rendered since the year 2000, they are entitled to the same benefit for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well -- Respondents directed to count the past service/part time service rendered by the petitioners on daily wage basis for the purpose of qualifying service and thereafter, recalculate and release the pension and other retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund, etc. -- Petitioners held entitled for Old Pension Scheme and interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits from the date the same became due till the date of actual payment.

(Para 8, 9)

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 5, 11 -- Family pension – Claim by second wife – Validity of marriage – Scope – Widow who is entitled to a family pension is the ‘wife’ who was lawfully married to the officer -- Petitioner’s marriage with the officer was solemnised during the lifetime of the first wife and during subsistence of the first marriage – Authorities rejected claim on ground that petitioner was not lawfully married to the officer – Held, under the applicable Pension Regulations, family pension is payable only to the legally wedded widow of the deceased officer – Marriage contracted during subsistence of earlier valid marriage is void in view of Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Death of the first wife after the officer’s demise does not validate the second marriage nor confer entitlement to family pension – Petitioner not being the legally wedded wife of the deceased officer, not entitled to family pension – Rejection of claim by authorities and Tribunal upheld – Petition dismissed.

(Para 21-27)

Constitution of India, Article 16 – Reservation – Migration of reserved category candidate to unreserved category – Relaxation at screening stage – Effect – Reserved category candidate qualified by availing relaxed cut-off applicable to BC-B category – Thereafter migration to General category on the basis of performance in subsequent stages -- Permissibility :

(i) A reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at any stage of the examination process, including the preliminary/screening stage, cannot thereafter claim allocation against an unreserved vacancy.

(ii) The expression "any relaxation at any stage of the examination" includes relaxation in qualifying marks at the screening stage, even though such stage is qualifying in nature and marks obtained therein are not counted for final merit.

(iii) When a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a reserved category candidate, such candidate shall be counted against reserved vacancies and shall be deemed unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies.

(iv) The distinction sought to be drawn between preliminary and final examination for the purpose of migration is totally misconceived. A person who avails relaxation at the initial stage will necessarily avail the same relaxation even at the final stage.

(v) An advertisement has the force of law and binds the parties.

(vi) A candidate who participates in the selection process without protest and is unsuccessful cannot subsequently challenge the process.

(vii) A candidate has no vested right to appointment. Selection confers only a right of consideration, not appointment.

Candidate availed relaxation at the Screening Test stage by securing “56.86” marks against the General category cut-off of “61.8132” -- Having availed such relaxation, he was rightly treated as a BC-B candidate throughout the selection process and could not have been migrated to the General category.

(Para 20, 21)

A. Constitution of India, Article 12 – Panchayat Samiti -- Instrumentality of State -- Panchayat Samiti, constituted under statutory enactments governing Panchayati Raj institutions and functioning under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, performs governmental and public functions at the grass-root level, operates under deep and pervasive control of the State Government and is substantially funded through State and Central grants – In view of the overwhelming financial dependence and dominant State funding, the financial control test unequivocally stands fulfilled – Held, Panchayat Samiti is an instrumentality of the State and falls within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 20-33)

B. Constitution of India, Article 12 – Employee of Panchayat Samiti – Whether Government employee -- Once it has been held that the Panchayat Samiti is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the principal foundation of the respondents’ defence that the petitioner was not a Government employee stands substantially eroded.

(Para 3)

C. Constitution of India, Article 12, 14, 16 – Service Law – Daily wager in Panchayat Samiti – Regularisation under Government policy – De-regularisation after three years -- Petitioner appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar through Employment Exchange in 1991 under Panchayat Samiti – State Government framed regularisation policy dated 18.03.1996 for daily wage employees completing three years continuous service with 240 days each year – Petitioner’s services regularised w.e.f. 01.02.1996 and regular pay scale, increments and GPF benefits granted – After more than three years, State passed order de-regularising petitioner on ground that he was not a Government employee but employee of Panchayat Samiti -- Held: Reasoning is legally untenable :

-- it is impermissible for the respondents to subsequently withdraw the regularisation on the plea of lack of authority in the initial appointment. Any alleged defect in the appointment of 12.03.1991 cannot be used to unsettle a valid regularisation effected on 01.02.1996, particularly when no fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment is attributed to the petitioner.

-- de-regularisation order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness on account of inordinate delay. For over three years after regularisation, the petitioner was treated as a regular employee in all respects. Such prolonged acquiescence by the State creates a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner that his service status would not be disturbed. Administrative fairness does not permit the State to undo a settled position after such a lapse of time.

-- the action of the respondents is ex facie discriminatory. Other similarly situated employees were regularised under the same or similar policies. Though notices for de-regularisation were issued to some of them, their cases either remained protected by interim orders of this Court or became infructuous upon retirement. Singling out the petitioner for de-regularisation in 1999, while extending protection or continued service to others similarly placed, amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

-- in view of the finding that the Panchayat Samiti is “State” under Article 12, the distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents between a Government employee and an employee of the Panchayat Samiti is artificial and unsustainable.

Impugned order quashed, and the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in regular service w.e.f. 01.02.1996 with full continuity of service -- Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including pay fixation, grant of increments, and retiral benefits, if any -- Arrears arising on account of such refixation shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date the amounts became due till the date of actual payment.

(Para 34-46)

Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1991, Rule 20 -- Disciplinary proceedings – Unauthorised absence – Dismissal – Forged Medical certificate -- Doctor appeared and gave a statement/ Ex.P-9 to the effect that the medical certificate in question was not issued by him; that he was not authorized to issue such certificate and Medical Certificate might have been fabricated by using his old letter pad -- Two undisputed signatures of Doctor, one in exhibit P-9 and the other while acknowledging receipt of notice are themselves not identical, though broadly similar -- Signature on the Ex. P-7 Medical Certificate is also not identical though broadly similar to what is in the acknowledgement and what is on Ex. P-9 – Inquiry officer should have referred the matter to a handwriting expert, before recording a finding of fabrication and forgery -- Failure to do so,  charge of forgery has not been proved – Dismissal order set aside -- Appellant ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits including all arrears of salary and emoluments since the non-employment was not due to the appellant’s fault.

(Para 10, 16, 40-45)

Constitution of India, Article 23 -- Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari -- Samagra Shiksha Scheme -- Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad -- Continuously for over ten years in a row are deemed to be employed permanently -- A fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month amounts to ‘Begar’ and unfair practice which is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution – Amount enhanced to Rs.17,000/- per month payable : Held,

i) The appointment of the part time or contractual instructors/teachers in fact no longer remains contractual in nature once the contract period of eleven months for which they were initially appointed or the extended contract period stood expired;

ii) They were not even part time instructors/teachers as they were specifically prohibited for taking any job or part time employment elsewhere during their spare time;

iii) In fact, these instructors/teachers having continued continuously for over ten years in a row are deemed to be employed permanently against deemed substantive posts, as with the passage of time and keeping in mind the continuity of the work, such posts stand automatically created;

iv) The Project Approval Board is the sole central authority to manage budget and finances under the Act and the scheme and to fix honorarium for the instructors/teachers appointed thereunder. No other authority has any say in the matter concerning finance and budget consequently in the fixation of honorarium;

v) The Project Approval Board having once approved the proposal for fixing Rs.17,000/- per month as honorarium to these instructors/teachers, no authority can sit over such a decision and pass orders contrary to it;

vi) The initial burden to pay honorarium to the instructors/teachers is upon the State Government who is free to recover the contribution of the Central Government from the Union of India on the principle of “pay & recover”;

vii) The honorarium payable to these instructors/teachers cannot be permitted to remain stagnant and the same is revisable periodically at least once in three years by the Project Approval Board or any other authority as may be determined by the Central Government/State Government under the scheme or the modified scheme;

viii) Any action of the State/Union Government to employ instructors/teachers on a fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month as was initially fixed in 2013-14 amounts to ‘Begar’ and unfair practice which is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution;

ix) The Project Approval Board having fixed honorarium to these instructors/teachers at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from the year 2017-18, the State Government/Central Government is not justified in paying them at a lesser rate of either Rs.8,470/- or Rs.9,800/- or at the basic rate of Rs.7,000/- per month.

Part time contractual instructors/ teachers appointed in the Upper Primary School in the State of U.P. are entitled to revision of their honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month which was initially fixed for the contract period of eleven months in the year 2013 -- All these instructors/teachers held entitled to receive honorarium at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month with effect from 2017-18 -- The State Government shall start paying honorarium to them at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2026 and the arrears of which shall be paid to them by the State Government within a period of six months from today -- State Government may recover the contribution of the Central Government from the Union of India.

(Para 70-72)

Constitution of India, 300A – Retiral benefits – Denial of -- Pension and gratuity are not bounty, but, property and hard earned benefit of the employee – Encashment of earned leave, Unearned leave, Gratuity, constitutes property under Article 300-A of Constitution of India same cannot be withheld without following due process of law -- Third respondent directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to disbursement of admissible benefits viz., General Provident Fund amount, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave and Unearned Leave on Private Affairs to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

(Para 14-21)

A. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), Section 2, 20 – Disability during service -- Supernumerary post with all consequential benefits till retirement – Right of employee -- Petitioner suffered a brain haemorrhage, assessed as 70% disabled -- Petitioner clearly falls within this definition, as he is unable to perform the duties of his post of Painter, cannot walk or stand properly, and is severely restricted in daily activities -- Certificate issued by the competent Medical Board clearly records 70% disability and specifies its validity up to 29.04.2029 --  Contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to benefits due to the absence of a “permanent” disability certificate rejected -- Petitioner will attain the age of 60 years in 2029, validity of the certificate, for the entire remaining period of his service – Petitioner held entitled to accommodation on a supernumerary post with all consequential benefits -- Respondents directed to release all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of salary, along with interest @ 6% per annum.

(Para 12-14, 20)

B. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), Section 2, 20 – Disability during service -- Supernumerary post with all consequential benefits till retirement – Right of employee -- An employee who acquires disability during service deserves empathy, institutional support, and reasonable accommodation, and not suspicion, indifference, or punitive action -- State, being a model employer, is expected to rise above technicalities and to act with compassion, sensitivity, and a sense of moral responsibility by making genuine efforts to adjust such an employee within the department rather than marginalising him or pushing him out of service -- Any approach that treats disability as a ground for denial of service protection would undermine human dignity and would erode the very letter and spirit of the Act, 2016.

(Para 16)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Pay scale parity -- Delay and laches -- Matters involving pay scale parity based on removal of anomalies, the cause of action continues from month to month as long as the anomaly persists -- Every month when the employee receives lesser pay than his similarly situated counterparts constitutes a fresh cause of action.

(Para 24)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Pay scale parity -- Discrimination – Employees appointed pursuant to a common competitive examination to identical posts and allocated to different departments purely by administrative allotment – Higher pay scale being given to others -- Principle of equality brooks no discrimination between persons who are similarly situated, and any differential treatment must be based on intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved -- Fixation of different pay scales without intelligible differentia is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Ld. Single Judge of High Court directed the State to revise the pay scale – Direction upheld.

(Para 2, 30, 33)

Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, Rule 5, 6 – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Death of dismissed employee -- Compassionate assistance to family – Dismissal on 04.12.1989, during the pendency of writ, he passed away on 22.02.1995 and writ was allowed on 22.02.2010 quashing the dismissal and directing release of all retiral benefits  -- Legal fiction is that the employee was never dismissed, unless the Court restricts relief --  Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules clarify that all the pending cases, such as that of the petitioner shall be covered under the 2006 Rules – Claim denied on the ground that petitioner applied belatedly – Order does not consider the effect of the 2010 judgment, the retrospective restoration of service, the settled law on compassionate claims, or the humanitarian object underlying the scheme -- An administrative authority exercising statutory discretion is required to record reasons that demonstrate meaningful application of mind -- Failure to do so renders the action of the respondents arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order set aside, respondents directed to extend financial assistance within a period of 4 weeks.

(Para 2-5)

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948), Section 2(e)(ii) -- Temporary Safaikarmi -- Honorarium of Rs.1200/- per month – Legality of – Schedule employment -- Petitioners say that they are working as Safaikarmi with their respective police stations on a temporary basis -- They receive for their services an honorarium of Rs.1200/- per month from the State Government -- SP replied that they work for one every day and for that they are compensated by an honorarium of Rs.1200/- a month – Since, they are men, whose service and labour is hired as outsiders, the protection of the Act of 1948 would be available to them -- Petitioners are part-time wagers and working as such in the Police Stations, they held entitled to be remunerated according to the minimum wages notified from time to time under the Act of 1948 and not in accordance with Government Order.

(Para 1, 2, 6, 24)

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 4 -- Assam Financial Corporation (Amendment) Staff Regulations, 2007, Regulation 107 – Assam Financial Corporation (Payment of Gratuity to Employees) Regulation, 1964 -- Gratuity to AFC employee -- Ceiling for gratuity as per AFC’s internal regulations not in sync with the Act -- State Government employees ceiling enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- -- Interpretation of the regulation must be made which is in favor of the employees -- Regulation 107 of the 2007 Regulations states ‘…maximum of Rs.3.50 lacs or as notified by the Govt. of Assam from time to time…’ -- Appellant’s submission that the payment of enhanced pay scale / allowances must first be approved by the Board of Directors rejected – Held, in case where the limit prescribed by the State Government is higher than the limit set by the AFC, the import of Regulation 107 has to be interpreted in such a manner that the benefit of the higher limit set by the State Government has to be given to the employees of the AFC – High Court granted benefit of the enhanced gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Appeal of AFC dismissed.

(Para 5, 6, 10, 16, 17)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 --  Multi-Purpose Worker (MPW) on contract basis – Non-release of salary after expiry of contract – Shifting to the web-portal of the HKRNL – Further engagement – Inquiry Committee of DEEO, Section Officer under the Chairmanship of Class-1 Officer of the Directorate constituted -- Petitioners permitted to represent before the said inquiry committee for establishing the dates upto which they actually worked in the respective schools  -- Respondents directed to conclude the enquiry after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to release remuneration for the period they have worked after 31.03.2024 within three months – Department is at liberty to take disciplinary action against the officer(s)/official(s), in case anyone is found negligent or deficient in performance of duty -- Further direction given for porting the MPWs to the HKRNL in terms of the applicable policy in accordance with law, within one month thereafter.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Service law – Disciplinary proceedings – Delay in pensionary benefits – Interest -- Show cause notice on 09.02.2015 -- Petitioner retired on 31.01.2016 – Disciplinary proceedings concluded on 25.07.2017 and the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were released on 29.11.2017 -- Respondents as ‘model employer’ required to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable dispatch -- Six months is a reasonable time – Petitioner held entitled to interest for the delayed period, six months to be excluded.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(u), 24 – Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Additional Public Prosecutor -- Contractual appointment -- Regularisation of -- Petitioner has not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional so as to deserve the relief of regularisation -- Appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State -- Thus, a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law -- High Court committed no error in rejecting the Writ Petition -- Special leave petition dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

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)

Constitution of India, Section 226 – Promotion of employee – Right to be considered --  Appellant was proceeded against both departmentally and under the criminal law -- Criminal case being lodged in which he was arrested but later acquitted -- Departmental proceedings set aside in 2009 by the Government -- In such circumstances, the appellant could not have been disentitled from a consideration in the year 2019 -- Writ petition was also filed in the year 2019 – Held, appellant must be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement due to his having become overaged -- The consideration will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted from 2019 and consequential benefits also shall be paid to him -- It is trite that the employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered, when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in the case – Appeal allowed.

(Para 4)

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)