CISF Rules 2001, Rule 36, 54 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Appointment in disciplined force-CISF -- Suppression of FIR u/s 323, 324 and 341 of IPC – Respondents-authorities after taking into consideration the decision in case of Avtar Singh’s case (2016) 8 SCC 47  terminated the services of the petitioner holding inter-alia that while the petitioner was appointed in CISF, a criminal case was pending against him at the time of his enrolment in the force, but he did not reveal the same and that there was deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating circumstance – No allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were attributed against the respondent authorities – Petitioner having been found to have committed gross misconduct right at the threshold of entering into disciplined force like CISF, and the respondent authorities having passed the order of his removal from service after following due process of law and without actuated by malafides, the court not inclined to exercise its limited jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution – SLP dismissed.

(Para 2, 9-14)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Lab attendant – Resignation by appointed candidate – Right of waiting list candidate -- Candidate higher in merit, was selected and joined – Upon the resignation of such candidate, the said vacancy again became available – Selection process came to an end and any vacancy, which arises thereafter, is to be filled in accordance with law by due advertisement once again and cannot be filled up from the waiting list.

(Para 11, 12)

State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, Rule 19(3), 50A(i)(a), 67(J) – Dismissal of employee -- Power of Managing Director to continue and conclude the disciplinary proceedings as if the officer continues to be in service – Held, no question of Managing Director exercising such discretion as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent had already culminated into his dismissal as per the order dated 11.08.1999 passed by the Appointing Authority -- Though the said order of dismissal was set aside by the Single Bench, the order of Single Bench had remained stayed pending the LPA filed by the Bank; and though the LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench, the said order in LPA was set aside by Supreme Court, observing that the person who hears the matter has to decide it -- Order of Appointing Authority dismissing the respondent from service after granting him opportunity of hearing was in consonance with the direction given by Supreme Court and could not be said to be arbitrary illegal or in violation of Rule 19(3) of the said Rules -- Impugned order passed by the Division Bench confirming the order passed by the Single Bench set aside.

(Para 12-14)

State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992, Rule 19(3) – Disciplinary proceedings -- Dismissal from service – Superannuation of employee -- Disciplinary proceedings concluded, culminating into order of dismissal from service on 11.08.1999 – In writ Ld. Single Bench on 26.03.2009 set aside the order of dismissal, however in LPA, Division Bench stayed the order passed by the Single Bench and said LPA dismissed on 22.04.2010 -- Meantime on 30.11.2009, the respondent attained the age of superannuation during the time, when the operation of the order of Single Bench was stayed -- Respondent could not be deemed to have continued in service, and also when he had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009 -- Thereafter, the order of Division Bench set aside by Supreme Court, again it could not be said that the respondent was continued in service, till he attained the age of superannuation -- It was only pursuant to the direction given by Supreme Court vide the order dated 25.11.2013, the Appointing Authority after issuing show-cause notice and granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent had passed the order imposing the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” w.e.f. 11.08.1999, i.e., from the date when the first order of dismissal was passed by the Appointing Authority – Order could not be said to be arbitrary illegal or in violation of Rule 19(3) of the said Rules.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(b) – Charge of taking bribe -- Contradictory enquiry report – Dismissal of employee -- After the enquiry officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner was not proved, he went on to hold the petitioner guilty – Such a contradiction within the same enquiry report is irreconcilable -- Finding of guilt has been returned only because visuals of the petitioner could be seen in the CD which the enquiry officer himself describes to be doctored or edited as the same was also found to contain visual clips which were absolutely unrelated to the event which was being inquired into – Finding of guilt cannot be sustained -- Since, the impugned orders passed by the SP, the IG and the DGP are based solely on the afore finding of guilt by the enquiry officer, as a necessary corollary, such orders would also be unsustainable and accordingly, they too are set aside.

(Para 2, 21, 22)

Constitution of India, Article 311 – Cancellation of appointment --Graduation degree not produced -- De-recognition of University -- Petitioner failed to submit his graduation degree even though detailed mark-sheets of all three years had been supplied -- On account of not submitting his graduation degree, appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled -- At the time of admission of the petitioner, Karnataka State Open University was recognized by UGC -- Petitioner could not be made to suffer on account of de-recognition of the University in the year 2014 – It cannot be said that the petitioner obtained appointment on fraudulent grounds -- Moreover, the said University has already been recognized by UGC -- Petitioner ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(Para 2, 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Salary at par with juniors -- Petitioners, who are working as Assistant Technical Officers with the respondent/University, are senior to the three employees -- Pay scales of these employees are higher than that of the petitioners which would be impermissible – Petition allowed, the pay of the petitioners would be stepped up at par with their juniors and they would also be paid arrears of pay accruing therefrom.

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Constable -- In BC Category the last selected candidate scored 26.41 marks whereas the petitioner has 26.50 marks -- Argument of respondent-State that the petitioner had refused to accept offer of appointment at Jalandhar District is not sustainable, as despite a specific direction given by Court to place on record any communication regarding non-acceptance of offer of appointment by the petitioner, no document has been placed on record -- Petitioner is duly entitled for appointment to the post of Constable under BC category in District Jalandhar -- Writ petition allowed -- Respondent-State directed to offer appointment with all consequential benefits.

(Para 5-9)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Promotion with retrospective effect – Fixation of pay – Monetary benefits -- Petitioner given promotion with retrospective effect from the date from which he was actually discharging the duties of HOD independently – Held, once he was given promotion w.e.f. 01.02.2012, it is unjustified on the part of the respondents to deny him the fixation of his pay from the back date -- Writ petition allowed, direction issued to the respondents to refix the pay and allowances of the petitioner w.e.f, 01.02.20212 in terms of the promotion order with all consequential benefits within one month and the monetary benefits be calculated and paid within the next one month.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Departmental proceedings against policeman -- Complainant in FIR turned hostile in view of the threat given by petitioner/policeman – Punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect given – Image of the police department lowered on account of the misconduct and threat in open public -- Punishment imposed upon the police officials does not suffer from any infirmity and neither it seems disproportionate to the misconduct in question -- Other delinquent official has chosen not contest the said punishment, which was imposed upon him – Held, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8-13)

A. Family Pension Scheme 1964, Rule 4 of Appendix II – Entitlement of 100% family pension to surviving widow – Initially family pension to wife and son of pre-deceased wife 50% each given – Later 50% of the family pension by defendant as step-son become aged 21 years withheld – No surviving heir from the pre deceased wife – Family Pension Scheme being a social welfare legislation, cannot by any stretch of imagination be interpreted to mean that when the share of the child born out of the first marriage ceases after attaining a particular age, such share would then go into the account of the State/defendant-department instead of the entire share going to the second wife i.e. the only surviving widow – Both the courts below held the plaintiff entitled to 100% family pension w.e.f. 1984 i.e. the date on which step-son attained the age of 21 years – No error in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below, which would warrant any interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6-13)

B. Family Pension Scheme 1964, Rule 4 of Appendix II -- Limitation – Family pension to wife and son of pre-deceased wife 50% each -- Withholding of 50% of the family pension by defendant as step-son become aged 21 years -- Suit by surviving wife for release of 50% withhold pension to her – Held it is recurring cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit -- Claim of the plaintiff would not be thwarted by limitation.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Health worker -- Registration with Council --  Requirement of – Late issuance of registration -- Appellants except one had applied for U.P. Council registration before the date of advertisement i.e., 15.12.2021 -- Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer – If it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him -- Respondent(s) directed to appoint the appellants to the post of Health Worker (Female) within a period of six weeks, if otherwise, they are found meritorious and fulfilling the other eligibility criteria and the appellants shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of their actual appointments.

(Para 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits – Rotation of quota rule -- Following questions need to be decided by a larger Bench of five Hon’ble Judges:

a. Whether the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra, 2020 (5) SCC 689 can be said to be a binding precedent in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo, 1966 (3) SCR 600 and the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy, 2004 (6) SCC 729?

b. In absence of specific statutory rules to the contrary, when the ‘rotation of quota’ rule is applicable, whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following ‘rotation of quota’ by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year?

(Para 35)

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 4, 5 – Instructions dated 04.08.2014 extending the benefit of maternity leave to the female employees of the Government of Haryana -- Contractual employee – Maternity leave benefit -- Respondents directed to grant the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioners for the period they are entitled for and the monetary benefit arising out of the said leave keeping in mind the 1961 Act as well as Instructions dated 04.08.2014 issued by the Government of Haryana.

(Para 12)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10(2)(a), 17-B, 33-C(2) -- Re-instatement with full back-wages by CGIT – Stay in writ petition – Whether the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages from the date of award of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 passed by the CGIT to the actual date of reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013? – Held, it was the employer-bank who obtained the stay against reinstatement and ultimately order of reinstatement attained the finality -- Merely because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings, the employee-appellant cannot be denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court -- Appellant shall be entitled to the full wages with all emoluments from the date of order of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 to the date of actual reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013, however, after adjusting/deducting the amount already paid under Section 17B of the ID Act -- Appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.

(Para 6-8)

Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 10 – Injury to employee – Compensation to employee -- Appellant is skilled labour, who was involved in the work of construction of hospital building -- Disability report showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58% of the limb, which corresponds with 26% whole body – Functional disability assessed as 100%, her age being 40 years and income being Rs.8000/-, 60% whereof works out to be Rs.4800/- and applying the multiplier of 184.17, as per Schedule IV of the 1993 Act, the compensation works out to be Rs.8,84,016/- -- Adding an amount of Rs.42,200/- towards medical expenses total compensation works out to be Rs.9,26,216/- rounded of to Rs. 9,30,000/-.  -- Appellant also held entitled for payment of interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of making the application till the date of actual payment.

(Para 17-23)

Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules, 1958, Rule 5(v), 6 – Cooperative Bank employee -- Wife and father of employee appointed as Directors – Deemed removal – Notice to petitioner/ employee necessary -- In terms of the Clause 6 the petitioner would have been removed from service on the same day as information was received that the employee had relatives as members of the board, but this removal would have come into effect only after due intimation to the petitioner -- This was never done and in the meantime the term of the Board of Members expired and an Administrator appointed -- Without issuing notice to the petitioner about his family members being members of the Board of Director, the orders terminating the services of the petitioner are not sustainable -- Writ allowed, impugned orders vide which the petitioner was removed from service, set aside -- Official respondents directed to take the petitioner back in service and grant him all the consequential financial benefits, as admissible under the rules.

(Para 8-10)

A. Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) – Departmental proceedings after retirement – Permissibility of -- A harmonious reading of Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) leads to only one irresistible conclusion that after an employee has retired from service there is a complete embargo on the initiation of departmental proceedings against him in respect of event(s) which may have taken place more than four years prior to the initiation of the departmental proceedings and that the date of initiation of such departmental proceedings is deemed to be the date when a charge-sheet is issued to the concerned government employee/pensioner/government employee placed under suspension.

(Para 8)

B. Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) – Quashing of departmental proceedings after retirement – Petitioner retired on 30.06.2019 and was issued a charge-sheet on 05.10.2021 through which he was sought to be departmentally proceeded against for an alleged misconduct by him between the years 1986-88 -- Alleged misconduct by the petitioner is prior to four years from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet -- Since by that time he had retired, such action on the part of the State is barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules and therefore unsustainable -- Impugned departmental proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Void ab initio appointment – Pensionary benefits -- Once the appointment is held to be illegal and void ab initio the services rendered cannot be considered/counted for the purpose of pension.

(Para 1)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 383 -- Succession Certificate – Adoption deed -- Compassionate appointment -- Whether a Succession Certificate can be treated as Adoption Deed? – Usually, a succession certificate is the key in the absence of a will -- Issuance of succession certificate does give right of succession to the claimed property of a deceased person, whereas adoption deed is a legal document wherein all rights and responsibilities, along with filiation, from the biological parent or parents are transferred to adopted parents -- A succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person, including a nominee -- Succession certificates produced by the petitioner nowhere declare him to be the adopted son of deceased -- Claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected in the absence of an adoption deed -- Moreover, there is no other document on record, like a school leaving certificate, record of a Municipal Committee etc. reflecting the name of decease entered as father of the petitioner -- Mere statement given in court by the biological father cannot be taken into consideration as he is an interested party -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 (2) (b) -- Dismissal from service -- Dispense with departmental enquiry – Connection with hardcore criminals – Ground of -- Mere allegation against the petitioner herein that he had close connection with the accused persons and had helped them, who are hardcore criminals, would not be sufficient ground to invoke Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India to dispense with holding of a departmental inquiry before dismissing him from service – Dismissal order set aside -- Open to the Department to take departmental action in accordance with law.

(Para 9-11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 (2) (b) -- Dismissal from service -- Dispense with departmental enquiry – Connection with hardcore criminals -- Observation “that no witness would come forward to depose against the petitioner as he has connections with hardcore criminals and there could be danger to the life of the Inquiry Officer, in case departmental inquiry is initiated because the petitioner has connections with hardcore criminals, who with a view to achieve their anti-social and illegal motive, can harm the life of any officer and also that the departmental inquiry might take long time and retention of the petitioner till then in the department would not be free from danger nor feasible in public interest”, would not satisfy the stringent conditions imposed of giving a reasonable explanation as to why an inquiry cannot be held before dismissing an employee -- Writ petition allowed, impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service set aside, leaving it open to the Department to take departmental action in accordance with law.

(Para 10, 11)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Constable – Cancellation of candidature -- Criminal case u/s 498-A IPC -- Acquittal in -- Effect of -- Appellant applied for the post of Constable found to be meritorious and eligible to be appointed as Constable -- In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offence u/s 498A of IPC earlier -- Therefore, as such there was no suppression on the part of the appellant in not disclosing true and correct facts -- Appellant came to be acquitted for the offence u/s 498A of IPC, 7 years before he applied for the post of Constable – Candidature of appellant restored -- Respondent(s) directed to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to be meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable – Appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment only.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Daily wager – Pensionary benefit to wife -- Daily-wager period as qualifying period -- Services of husband of petitioner regularised w.e.f. 10.05.1993, later expired on 26.02.2017 – Contention that petitioner-wife is entitled to receive the revised pensionary benefits by treating the services rendered by her husband prior to his regularization as qualifying service in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Kesar Chand’s  case AIR 1998 (Punjab) 265 – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice in the light of the aforenoted judgment and other relevant material within a period of four months.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Advertisement for appointment – Relevant date for qualification -- Respondent no.1 acquired the qualification on 19.12.2018, whereas the last date of submission of application was 18.08.2018 – On the date of interview, i.e. 25.02.2019, the respondent No.1 had already acquired the qualification – Contention that deemed to have acquired the qualification in July, 2018, i.e. prior to the date of advertisement is without merit – Cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application, Ashok Kumar Sonkar’s case (2007) 4 SCC 54 relied.

(Para 5-11)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII, Rule 7.3 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(2) – Conviction in criminal case – Dismissal from service – Re-instatement after conviction set aside – Pay and allowances for dismissal period -- No departmental proceedings were initiated against him – Petitioner held entitled, disputed period to be treated as duty period with all consequential benefits -- Arrears of salary etc. for the said period be released to the petitioner, within a period of three months failing which, the amount due shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment.

(Para 8-11)

A. Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3(5), 10, 19 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 100 -- Death/ injury to employee -- Compensation to employee -- Jurisdiction of civil Court – Substantial question of law -- Whether provisions of Section 3(5) and 19 the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, bar jurisdiction of civil Courts to entertain a suit for damages/compensation on account of death or injury suffered by an employee during the course of employment – Held, civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages/compensation with respect to an injury or death of an employee, if no claim for compensation before a Commissioner under the Act of 1923 has been instituted in that regard.

(Para 12-14)

B. Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3(5), 10, 19 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 100 -- Death of employee -- Compensation to employee -- Suit for recovery of compensation -- Assessment of damages – Courts below assessed the damages on the basis of principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Keeping in view the age, income and number of dependents of the deceased and by applying adequate multiplier of ‘14’, an amount of Rs.20,15,600/- was awarded as compensation, to be paid by the Insurance company along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till its realisation – No exception can be taken to the assessment of compensation on the basis of principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as done by the Courts below. Paramjit Kaur’s case 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 772 (P&H DB) relied -- No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8, 14-17)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Daily wages period – Qualifying period for pensionary/retiral benefits -- Writ of mandamus seeking direction to respondents to count the daily wage as Special Police Officer (SPO) service of the petitioners, rendered before their respective regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary/retiral benefits as the same benefit has been granted by High Court in other writs -- In this regard, a legal notice has been served upon the respondents – Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide legal notice within a period of six months.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Society laws -- Appointment of Chowkidar – Appointment made without advertisement -- Merely because approval has been granted to the appointment by the Assistant Registrar cannot justify an appointment which had been carried without notice to the public at large – By impugned order appointment set aside -- No merit in petition warranting interference – Petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226, 309 – Disturbance in seniority – Opportunity of hearing -- Petitioner was initially working as UDC in field cadre and thereafter adjusted in the head office – Impugned order passed after a representation had been received against the change of cadre of the petitioner to head office -- Petitioner had not been issued any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside -- Respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order after issuance of notice along with furnishing a copy of representation and by affording an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Public appointment – Registration of FIR – Effect of – FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence – Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, effective from the date the candidate immediately lower to her in the merit of selection was appointed -- Petitioner shall also be, accordingly, entitled to all service benefits including seniority and pay fixation on notional basis -- However, petitioner will not be entitled to arrears of salary upto the date she actually joins.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Public appointment – Registration of criminal case -- Induction of a term in the appointment letter; to the effect that if a criminal case is registered then the appointment would be denied, would be totally without any legal sanction.

(Para 6)

Compassionate appointment – Qualification – Requisite date -- Qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment is considered.

(Para 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Compassionate appointment – Concession not a right -- Appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms -- Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

(Para 6)

B. Compassionate appointment -- Object of -- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment -- Whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis -- Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

(Para 7)

C. Compassionate appointment to married daughter – Right of – Effect of delay -- Claim rejected on 18.08.2011/ 23.4.2013 – Respondent-daughter cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother -- Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.

(Para 2.1-2.3, 7.1)

A. Compassionate appointment to daughter – Wife already employed -- Widow of the deceased employee was serving in the Kerala State Health Services Department and, therefore, as such was not eligible and/or entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Government employment -- Compassionate appointment – Object of -- Concession not a right -- For all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms -- Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right -- Whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis -- Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

(Para 8, 9)

C. Compassionate appointment to daughter – Application after 14 years of death – Case rejected after 24 years of death – Held, after a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground -- If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.

(Para 9.1)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10, 33(2)(b) -- Termination of employee with approval of Industrial Tribunal – Maintainability of reference -- On conclusion of the departmental enquiry services were terminated -- Termination was the subject matter of the approval application before the Industrial Tribunal in an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act – On appreciation of evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal approved the order of termination – Held, fresh reference u/s 10 of the I.D. Act challenging the order of termination was not permissible.

(Para 5.1)

A. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions, Etc.) Rules, 1993, Rule 5(viii), 10, 13, 14 -- Absorption of Aided School employee in State service – Undertaking by employees -- Leave encashment benefits -- Leave encashment is part of salary – State cannot shrug its responsibility to shoulder its part of the responsibility to pay the appellants the share of leave encashment benefits, and hide behind either Rule 5 (viii) or the undertaking executed by them -- Appellants are held entitled to privilege leave entitlement benefits -- Such benefit shall be calculated from the date they entered the service of the establishment till the date of their absorption, by the State, in 2016 -- State shall pay the benefits due to the extent of 70%, and the balance 30% shall be payable by the management establishment – Interest @ 10% from the date(s) of their entitlement, till the date of payment awarded.

(Para 21, 23)

B. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions, Etc.) Rules, 1993, Rule 82 -- Absorption of Aided School employee in State service – Gratuity – Liability of Aided School/ Establishment -- Scheme of the 1993 Rules, categorically cast the liability to pay gratuity on the employer, i.e., the aided establishment – Neither has Rule 82 changed, nor has any other material been brought to the notice of the court, to say that the management are absolved of their liability to pay gratuity, upon termination of their relationship with the appellants as their employers -- Rule 82 is a condition of grant, which meant that the management establishment was conscious and aware of its liability when it applied and was granted aid, under the 1993 Rules -- Therefore, it cannot escape its liability on that score -- Respondent-Management to pay the amount of gratuity, to the appellants till the date of order of absorption, by the State -- Interest @ 10% from the date(s) of their entitlement, till the date of payment awarded.

(Para 22, 23)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25-B -- Labour law – Termination of Watchman in 1992 -- Re-instatement after 20 years – Back wages -- Court finds no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court and the single judge in directing the appellant’s reinstatement -- Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years -- Denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him, although the delay is attributable to the judicial process -- However, the respondent management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in its litigative proclivity -- Appellant held entitled to backwages for a period of two years immediately preceding, i.e., from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022 at current rates.

(Para 14, 15)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Arbitrariness violates Article 14, 16 -- State is bound by the fundamental rights of its employees under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India -- Arbitrariness violates the right to equality under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 12)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, Rule 25(2) – Resignation/ appointment after seeking permission -- Resignation from service may entail forfeiture of past service -- However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Rules carves out an exception, clarifies that a resignation with proper permission to take up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service -- Respondent was selected through Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), while he was still in service of the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, which is also an entity fully controlled by the State of Rajasthan -- Respondent having retired after working for about 26 years, the Petitioner-State cannot raise the question of proof of prior permission before resignation, more so when the appointment had been made through the RPSC to a Government post -- It is to be deemed that there has been disclosure of past service and the application has been made through proper channel by obtaining the requisite approvals -- It is to be presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary could be established by the State.

(Para 23-26)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay of six years in filing the Writ Petition – Limitation -- Laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Relief being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled – Pension is a lifelong benefit, denial of pension is a continuing wrong -- Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints.

(Para 26-27)

D. Interpretation of pension rules – It is settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee.

(Para 28)

Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Sections 3, 4, 20 – Injury to employee – Permanent disability – Medical report -- Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded Rs. 3,74,364/- towards the compensation taking the permanent disability as 60% relying upon disability certificate of 2009 issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer -- High Court set aside the order passed by the Commissioner relying upon medical report dated 09.11.2017 (i.e. appellant has not suffered any permanent disability) given by Medical Board constituted on application of employer – Held, injured employee examined after a period of approximately nine years from the date of accident, employer ought to have made such a request before the Commissioner at the earliest opportunity – In pursuant to the earlier order passed by the High Court, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by the respondent, appellant has already withdrawn 50% of the amount, i.e., Rs. 3,76,236/- -- Appellant held entitled to Rs. 3,76,236/- by way of compensation with interest, which the appellant has already withdrawn, to meet the ends of justice – Rs. 3,76,236/- withdrawn by the appellant treated as full and final settlement of the claim.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre and Service) Rules, 1975 -- Superannuation of employees – Retiral and terminal benefits -- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to go into the question of law as raised by the parties, since all the appellants have superannuated -- Appellants give up their claim for arrears and that they restricted their claim only insofar as the terminal benefits and pension as payable to them – Appeals disposed of with a direction to the respondents to calculate terminal benefits on the basis of the orders passed by the learned CAT dated 26th May 2008 and 7th July, 2010 as the learned CAT order dated 26th May 2008 was not challenged by the respondent-Union of India and has, therefore, attained finality -- Pension would be paid to the appellants w.e.f. 1st January 2023 -- Appellants held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the terminal benefits payable to them from the date of their superannuation till the date of actual payment.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004 – Appointment / Promotion as District Judge – Direct recruitment – Jump promotes --  Promotion – Right of -- Issuance of Draft gradation list – Challenge to -- Writ Petition, as filed, ought not to have entertained on draft gradation list calling for objections – No error in the administrative decision taken by the High Court in facilitating the issuance of the impugned communication calling for objection on the premise that eligible officers will have to be fitted against the vacancies for the period from 1.10.2004 to 31.12.2008 -- It is the fair acknowledgment on the part of the High Court to redeem the mistake committed in not promoting the officers at the appropriate time -- One cannot withhold the due promotion of the promotes till the date of recruitment of the direct recruits or appointment of the jump promotes -- High Court and the State Government directed to give effect to the impugned draft gradation list insofar as the appellant alone, within a period of 12 weeks.

(Para 10-13)

A. Constitution of India, Article 310, 311 -- Departmental proceedings – Acquittal in criminal case -- Reinstatement in service – Right of -- A departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding -- Fundamental difference between the two is that whereas in a departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of “preponderance of probabilities”, in a criminal court the prosecution has to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt” -- The two forums run at different levels -- Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 310, 311 -- Departmental proceedings – Acquittal in criminal case – Benefit of doubt -- Reinstatement in service – Right of -- By the impugned order, the Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge which had allowed the writ petition of the respondent, quashing his dismissal from service – Acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt” – Appeal allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside.

(Para 1, 14)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Termination of employee – Departmental enquiry – FIR -- Mere registration of an FIR would not be sufficient ground to invoke Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India to dispense with holding of a departmental inquiry before dismissing a delinquent employee.

(Para 7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Termination of employee -- Dispensed with departmental enquiry -- Adequate reasons have to be given in the order of dismissal as to why it would not be reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry.

(Para 7)

C. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Dismissal of employee -- On perusal of impugned order of dismissal, it is apparent that no reasons whatsoever have been recorded to show as to why it is not possible to hold an inquiry -- A mere observation that the conduct of the petitioner is not good for credibility of the police department and he does not deserve to be a good public servant in future, would not satisfy the stringent conditions imposed of giving a reasonable explanation as to why an inquiry cannot be held before dismissing an employee -- Writ petition allowed, impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963, Rules 2(a), 3, 6, 7 -- Allotment of land to Disabled ex-serviceman – Right of – Internal departmental communication – Reliance upon -- Letter written by the Secretary of the Soldier Welfare Department to the District Collector, on 19.03.1971 for allotment of land -- Rules contemplate that if the possession is not taken within 6 months, the allotment shall be deemed to have been cancelled – Held, firstly, the inter-departmental communication dated 19.03.1971 cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment -- Alternatively, even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, the writ petitioner could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-servicemen -- Disabled ex-serviceman had not taken any action for almost 27 years after the so-called letter of allotment during his life time – Writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral motives -- High Court had gone out of the way to order possession of land which was never proceeded with letter of allotment in favour of the writ petitioner -- Appeal allowed, order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 13-18)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25F, 25FFA – Closure of business -- Bonafide of Management -- Retrenchment of employees -- Re-employment thereafter – Continuity of service with backwages – Right of -- 55 drivers/employee went on strike over claiming pay hike and permanency of casual employees -- Soon after employees joined services, appellant through individual letters ‘retrenched’ the services of all 55 employees, on the ground of closure of business – Later, appellant started offering re-employment to all employees on new terms and conditions – Retrenchment of all drivers followed by an offer of re-employment on new terms and conditions was not bona fide -- Once the orders of retrenchment set aside, the workmen naturally became entitled to continuity of service with order of back wages.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25F, 25FFA –Constitution of India, Article 136 – Closure of business -- Retrenchment of employees -- Setting aside of -- Backwages – Right of -- Whether award of 75% back-wages to employees was justified, after their retrenchment orders were set aside – Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence directed reinstatement of the employees with only 75% back wages -- Whether a workman was gainfully employed or not is a question of fact, and the finding of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court, cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court in exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 18)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33C(2) – Constitution of India, Article  226, 227 -- Labour law -- Recovery of wages – Writ Court’s duty -- Labour Court rejected application u/s 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 preferred by the workman – Ld. Single Judge without any discussion and/or recording any specific findings on the merits of the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application, allowed the writ petition – Held, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the writ petition preferred by the workman on merits and ought to have given some findings on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application -- Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside -- Matter remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide Writ Petition afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.

(Para 2.1, 4.2, 5)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33C(2) – Labour law -- Correction in date of birth – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Issue involved relates only to the correction of the date of birth -- Jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted, as this is not a case relating to enforcement of a right or an obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 – Recruitment of driver – Long pendency of petition – Changed circumstances – Compensation in lieu of appointment -- High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to appoint the private respondent/ original petitioner as Driver with seniority as per his merit position without any back wages – Initial recruitment 14 year back – At present no post of driver available -- All the subsequent appointments are now being made on contractual basis and through contractors -- As on today, the age of the respondent No.1 would be approximately 49 years -- Retirement age of the driver is reported to be 55 years -- If the respondent No.1 is to be appointed now as driver, he will have to clear the driving test to drive the bus on the road – Held, at this stage, the actual appointment of respondent No.1 is not possible -- Rs.7.5 lakhs awarded as compensation with 6 per cent interest from September, 2013 onwards till the actual payment.

(Para 2-5)

A. Army Rules, 1954, Rule 14(b) -- Disability pension – Delay in medical examination -- Question of entitlement of soldier to disability pension cannot be determined on the basis of medical examination conducted 20 years after his discharge.

(Para 15)

B. Army Rules, 1954, Rule 13(3) III(v) 14(b) -- Disability pension – Disability related to army service -- Medical Expert opinion -- Discharge was on administrative grounds and not medical grounds -- Mere fact that an ailment or disease may have arisen in service does not mean that the ailment or disease is attributable to service conditions -- Review Medical Board only assessed the extent of the disability of the Respondent and the approximate duration of the disability, but not the cause thereof -- Reliance would necessarily have to be placed on expert medical opinion -- Tribunal patently erred in law in proceeding on the basis of a misconceived notion that any ailment or disability of a soldier, not noted at the time of recruitment but detected or diagnosed at the time of his discharge or earlier, would entitle the soldier to disability pension on the presumption that the disability was attributable to military service, whether or not the disability led to his discharge, and the onus was on the employer to prove otherwise, which the Appellants in this case had failed to do – Claim of the Respondent for disability pension should not have been entertained and that too, 20 years after his discharge -- Impugned judgment and order is set aside.

(Para 23-27)

Armed Force Services -- Pension Regulations, 173 -- Entitlement Rules, 1982, Rule 12 -- Military service – Accident after reaching leave station -- Disability pension – Entitlement of -- Two days after the respondent reached the leave station, he met with an accident on a public road -- Absolutely no nexus between the Military service and injuries sustained by the respondent -- Not even a causal connection -- Hence, the respondent not entitled to the disability pension.

(Para 10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Adverse remarks in ACR – Reliance upon -- Nothing has been placed on record that the annual confidential report were ever served upon the petitioner for her comments -- These reports cannot be taken into consideration.

(Para 14)

B. Haryana Government Regularisation Policy dated 1.10.2003 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 309 -- Appointment on adhoc basis – Regularisation of – Pensionary benefits – Right of -- Petitioner has rendered more than 25 years of service whereas, a regular employee, who has served for 10 years, becomes entitled for the grant of pension -- Petitioner retired in 2009, direction issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regular employee w.e.f. 01.10.2003, which benefit has already been extended to not only similarly situated employees but even to the juniors of the petitioner – Petitioner is before High Court for the last 10 years waiting for the pensionary benefits held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum as the arrears to be paid to her from the date the petitioner file the petition i.e. 08.05.2012.

(Para 29-31)