Court Judgements On Service Matters

13/09/2023 Comments Off on Court Judgements On Service Matters

More: High Court Judgements * Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Circulars / Orders * Court Judgments (All) * Vigilance Related GOI/CVC Notifications/Office Orders/Circulars * Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates

Unmissable

RECENT JUDGEMENTS

  • Delhi HC Judgement dated 06.09.2023 – Union of India and Ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Gaur (reg. medical claim for treatment at a non-empanelled hospital)
  • Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.08.2023 – Captain Arvind Kathpalia Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr (reg. double jeopardy)
  • Disciplinary Proceedings Against Deputationist
    – SC Judgment dated 04.09.2023 – Sunil Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • Government staff not entitled to overtime work allowance: SC
    >>>     SC Judgment dated 18.04.2023 – Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc. – Referring to FR 11, Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that there was actually no scope for the respondents to seek payment of Double Over Time Allowance. “It is needless to say that no benefit can be claimed by anyone dehors the statutory rules.”
    Therefore, even while allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the appellants not to effect any recovery from those to whom payments have already been made.
  • Employer cannot terminate employee for suppression of criminal case: Supreme Court
    SC: “18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable…”. The Respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice. It was further directed that the Appellant was not entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. — SC Judgment dated 02.05.2022 – Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • Reservation in Promotions
    Reservation in Promotions: Supreme Court Holds Cadre As Unit For Collecting Quantifiable Data On Adequacy of Representation; Collection Of Data On Entire Service Meaningless
    –     SC Judgment dated 28.01.2022 – Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors.
  • Sexual Harassment
    Bombay High Court: Guidelines to Protect Identities of Parties Involved
    –     Bombay HC Judgement dated 24.09.2021 – P Vs. A & Ors.
  • Reservation for PwDs (Handicapped) in Promotion
    – The Supreme Court on June 28, 2021 ruled that reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) mandated by Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is applicable to promotions as well (State of Kerala vs. Leesamma Joseph). – SC Judgment dated 28.06.2021 – The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph
  • Reservation for Marathas and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
    Hon’ble Supreme Court, on May 05, 2021, unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.
    The bench struck down the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 to the extent it held Marathas as a socially and economically backward class as violating the principles of equality. The bench struck down the reservation given to Marathas in job and education. However, the bench clarified that the judgment will not affect the PG Medical Admissions under Maratha quota made till 09.09.2020.
    The bench held that there was no need to revisit the 50% ceiling limit on reservation laid down by the 9-judge bench decision in the Indira Sawhney case.
    In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power of states to identify “Socially and Educationally Backward Classes(SEBCs)”. (Source: Livelaw.in) – SC Judgment dated 05.05.2021 – Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. 
  • Gratuity
    Forfeiture of gratuity under the  Rules read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972
    SC: “… in  view of  Rule  34.3  of  the  Rules,  1978,  the employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. ….. In my considered view, after conclusion of the disciplinary  inquiry, if held guilty, indeed a penalty can be inflicted upon an employee/delinquent   who  stood  retired  from  service and  what should be the nature of penalty is always depend on the relevant scheme   of   Rules   and  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of   each case, but either of the substantive penalties specified under Rule 27  of   the  Rules,  1978  including  dismissal   from  service  are  not open to be inflicted on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of forfeiture of gratuity commensurate with the nature of guilt may be inflicted upon a delinquent employee provided under Rule  34.3 of  Rules,  1978 read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972.” –  SC Judgment dated 27.05.2020 – Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Chaubey
  • Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ for Improper Handling of Complaint
    Hon’ble SC has, inter alia, held –
    – The   impugned   order   of   compulsory   retirement   passed   under Rule 135 against the appellant/petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the judgment.
    – The   respondent(s) (Union of India) was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-­ to the appellant/petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity ­ as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment. –  SC Judgment dated 24.04.2020 – Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • Reservation
    No Reservation in Promotions Without Examining Adequacy of Representation in Promotional Posts: Supreme Court
    SC: “… … The Resolution has  no  legal  basis. … While it is open for the State to confer benefit even through  an  executive  order  by  applying  mandatory  requirements  as contemplated under Article 16(4A) but the Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is  merely  issued by referring to the instructions of  the Union of  India without examining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts, as held by this Court.” –  SC Judgment dated 17.04.2020 – Pravakar Mallick & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors.
  • Gratuity
    An employee is an employee, casual, ad-hoc or part time, under the Payment of Gratuity Act: Delhi HC
    Delhi HC: “The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2. … … :
    The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis of the wages / emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.” – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 17.11.2019 – National Bal Bhawan Vs. Vandana, Roopa Sharma and Ors.
  • Simultaneous Proceedings
    — SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” [Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence] –  SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 – Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah
    SC: “Para 10 … …. This Court was of the opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar. However, it is desirable to stay departmental inquiry till conclusion of the criminal case if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact.” [Simultaneous Proceedings] – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. 
    SC: “In the peculiar circumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would also be entitled to his cost which is quantified as Rs.15,000/-.”- SC Judgment dated 30.03.1999 – Capt. M. Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.
  • No Fundamental Right to Reservation
    It has, inter alia, been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. as under:-
    “16.  …  … In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in State services. Even if the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court, no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh Chand Gautam (supra). Therefore, the direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services on the basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and is accordingly set aside. … …” – SC Judgment dated 07.02.2020 – Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
  • Sexual Harassment
    Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.” [Sexual Harassment] –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 – Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors.
  • Voluntary Retirement
    Employee can withdraw request for voluntary retirement any time before its acceptance.
    Delhi HC: “… … the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 rejecting the petitioner‟s request for withdrawal of her application for voluntary retirement is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have validly withdrawn her request for voluntarily retirement.”- Delhi High Court Judgement dated 27.09.2019 – Poonam Garg Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. through its MD & Ors.
  • Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)
    SC: “We, thus, are of the view that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. xxx
    26. Before we close, we once more make it clear that with regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority.” [Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC] – SC Judgment dated 21.08.2019 – Dr. P.S. Malik Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr.
  • Sanction for Prosecution
    SC: “15. It is therefore, held that the question of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. with regard to appellants nos.3 and 4 treating them to be ‘public servant’ simply does not arise because of their absorption in the Corporation.” [Sanction for Prosecution] –  SC Judgment dated 19.08.2019 – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others V. Pramod V. Sawant and Another
  • Simultaneous Proceedings
    SC: “13. … … It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court.” – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings] – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings]
  • Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings
    Delhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.” —  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 – D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. 
  • Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
    Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 – J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr.
  • Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order
    Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
    xxx                               xxx
    14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.” — Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 – Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors.
  • Adultery
    Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried. – Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 – Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
  • Migration to General Seat
    SC: Reserved category candidate can’t migrate to general seat after availing age relaxation. – SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 – Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors.
  • RESERVATION FOR SCs/STs IN PROMOTION
    SC: “Finally,   it   may   also   be   noted   that   under   the Government Order dated 13 April 1999, reservation in promotion in favour of SC‘s and ST‘s has been provided until the representation for thesecategories reaches 15 per  cent and  3per  cent, respectively. The State has informed the Court that the above Government Order is applicable to KPTCL and PWD, as well.
    K   Conclusion
    144.  For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in BK Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analyzing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj.  The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by BK Pavitra Iin respect of the Reservation Act2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling  power conferred  by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.” –   SC Judgment dated 10.05.2019 – B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
    SC: “Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven–Judge Bench. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) is held to be invalid to this extent.” – SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others
  • CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service
    SC: “24.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the Appellants to issue a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error which calls for the interference by this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.” – SC Judgement dated 05.02.2019 – Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Harananda & Ors. 
  • Court Martial
    SC: Army personnel entitled for legal representation during summary court martial – SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 – Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr.
  • Gratuity
    The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court –     Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.10.2018 – Vijay Krishan V. The State Trading Corporation & Ors.
  • Pension and Gratuity
    SC: “It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold – even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation.” – SC Judgment dated 13.02.2015 – Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh
  • BENEFIT OF RESERVATION IN THE ORIGINAL STATE
    SC: “… … a  person  who  is  recognised  as  a  member  of Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  in  his  original State, will  be entitled to all  the benefits of reservation under  the Constitution in that  State only  and not  in other  States/Union Territories and not  entitled to the benefits  of  reservation  in  the  migrated  State/Union Territory.” –  SC Judgment dated 30.08.2018 – Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors.
  • GRATUITY
    SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law – SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 – Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another
  • FALSE CASTE CLAIM
    Times of India: “The Supreme Court on Thursday said anyone found guilty of using a forged caste certificate for getting education and employment will lose their degree and their job.
    In addition, they will also be punished, said the top court.” – SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 – Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors.
  • SC: “These temporary and badli workers, who are entitled for regularization as permanent workmen in terms of our March 18, 2015 judgment by applying the terms and conditions of the modified award of August 26, 1988, passed by Justice Jamdar, are held to be entitled to full back wages. However, keeping in mind the immense financial burden this would cause to LIC, we deem it fit to modify the relief only with regard to the back wages payable and therefore, we award 50% of the back wages with consequential benefits. The back wages must be calculated on the basis of the gross salary of the workmen, applicable as on the date as per the periodical revisions of pay scale as stated supra.” – SC Judgment dated 09.08.2016 – Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. Roy, Chairman, LIC of India & Anr.
  • Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that non-disclosure of petty offences of the past, like shouting slogans, in the curriculum vitae should not ordinarily be a ground to deny a job. Other guidelines are also contained in their judgement dated 21.07.2016.  SC Judgment dated 21.07.2016 – Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
  • SC: “The issue which arises in such cases is whether there are circumstances from which an inference that extraneous considerations have actuated a judicial officer can legitimately be drawn. Such an inference cannot obviously be drawn merely from a hypothesis that a decision is erroneous. A wrong decision can yet be a bona fide error of judgment. Inadvertence is consistent with an honest error of judgment. A charge of misconduct against a judicial officer must be distinguished from a purely erroneous decision whether on law or on fact. … …” – SC Judgment dated 12.07.2016 – R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. – [Disciplinary Action against authorities exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions]

A. Supreme Court Judgements – Subject-Wise
B. High Court Judgments
C. CAT Judgements

A. Supreme Court Judgements – Subject-Wise

ACRs * Appointment * CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service * Charge-Sheet * Compassionate Appointment * Conviction * Court Martial * Defending Officer/Friend of the Accused * Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings/Inquiry * Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Bias * Departmental Inquiry to be conducted in the preferred language of the employee * Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act * Disciplinary action for lapses while discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions * Disciplinary Authority/Power to Institute Disc. Proceedings* Disciplinay Proceedings Against Deputationist * Double Jeopardy * Equal Pay For Equal Work Not a Fundamental Right * Ex Parte Inquiry * Exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing of the criminal prosecution * Gratuity * In case of minor penalty, due promotion to be granted in accordance with the rules * Indiscipline – Misbehaviour * Investigation of Corruption Charges against against JS and above rank Officers * Judicial Review – Limitations * Labour Court/Tribunal Award * Leave Rules – Child Care Leave * Major Penalty without Inquiry * Medical Claim for Treatment at Non-Empanelled Hospital * Misappropriation * Natural Justice – Overtime Allowance * Quasi-Judicial Authority – Administrative Authority * Pension and Gratuity * Promotion – RRs * Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 * Punishment to be commensurate with Articles of Charge * Punishment under the PC Act * Recovery * Reinstatement – Salary * Reopening of the inquiry qua charge sheet after 30 years or so would not serve any purpose * Reservation * Res Judicata * Retirement Age * Sanction for Prosecution * Second Marriage * Seniority – Ad Hoc Service * Sexual Harassment * Simultaneous Proceedings * Suspension * Transparency in Services (Minimum fixed tenure, recording of oral directions, etc.) * Unauthorized Absence * Unconditional Apology * VRS – Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement * Uncategorized

ACRs
— “However, it will be open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with law.”

  SC Judgment dated 23.04.2013 - Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (152.4 KiB, 4,130 hits)

— “… ……If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment.”

  SC Judgment dated 12.05.2008 - Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (71.0 KiB, 4,742 hits)

Appointment

— Appointment on bogus certificates set aside

  SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 8,601 hits)

— Non-disclosure of petty offences of the past, like shouting slogans, in the curriculum vitae should not ordinarily be a ground to deny a job. Other guidelines are also contained in their judgement dated 21.07.2016.

  SC Judgment dated 21.07.2016 - Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (384.7 KiB, 5,660 hits)

— Suppression of Criminal Case (Employer cannot terminate) 

  SC Judgment dated 02.05.2022 - Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (392.1 KiB, 3,065 hits)

CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service

SC: “24.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the Appellants to issue a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error which calls for the interference by this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.”

  SC Judgement dated 05.02.2019 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Harananda & Ors. (452.7 KiB, 1,906 hits)

Charge-Sheet
— The charge sheet/charge memo having not been approved by the disciplinary authority was non est in the eye of law.

  SC Judgment dated 05.09.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath (289.7 KiB, 17,708 hits)

Compassionate Appointment

— No compassionate appointment without qualification

  SC Judgment dated 20.02.2015 - The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Revat Singh (174.5 KiB, 7,083 hits)

Conviction
— Suspension of Sentence
SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence

  SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah (94.2 KiB, 1,604 hits)

Court Martial
SC: Army personnel entitled for legal representation during summary court martial.

  SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 2,348 hits)

Defending Officer/Friend of the Accused

SC: Army personnel entitled for legal representation during summary court martial. 

  SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 2,348 hits)

Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Bias

  SC Judgment dated 18.10.2000 - Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. (53.6 KiB, 3,162 hits)

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings/Inquiry

— It is a settled legal proposition that a departmental enquiry can be quashed on the ground of delay provided the charges are not very grave.

  SC Judgment dated 29.04.2013 - Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors. (275.4 KiB, 12,733 hits)

— SC: “… … we are of the considered view that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the limit frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.”

  SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 - Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. (185.6 KiB, 10,209 hits)

Departmental Inquiry to be conducted in the preferred language of the employee

  SC Judgment dated 01.05.2013 - Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (30.8 KiB, 3,140 hits)

Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 - J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr. (583.4 KiB, 6,993 hits)

Disciplinary action authorities discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions

  SC Judgment dated 27.01.1993 - Union of India Vs. K.K. Dhawan (46.1 KiB, 3,504 hits)

Disciplinary Authority/Power to Institute Disc. Proceedings 

  SC Judgment dated 15.10.2012 - UCO Bank & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Saha (227.4 KiB, 3,013 hits)

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Deputationist

  SC Judgment dated 04.09.2023 - Sunil Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. (1.2 MiB, 2,292 hits)

Double Jeopardy
— On exoneration in disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings not to continue

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.08.2023 - Captain Arvind Kathpalia Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr (reg. double jeopardy) (460.9 KiB, 752 hits)

Equal Pay for Equal Work Not a Fundamental Right

  SC Judgment dated 27.01.2022 - State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and Anr. (198.8 KiB, 2,999 hits)

Ex Parte Inquiry

  SC Judgment dated 14.01.2013 - State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (216.6 KiB, 2,844 hits)

 Exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing of the criminal prosecution

  SC Judgment dated 31.08.2012 - NCT of Delhi Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (99.8 KiB, 3,033 hits)

Gratuity
— Forfeiture of gratuity under the  Rules read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972
SC: “… in  view of  Rule  34.3  of  the  Rules,  1978,  the employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. ….. In my considered view, after conclusion of the disciplinary  inquiry, if held guilty, indeed a penalty can be inflicted upon an employee/delinquent   who  stood  retired  from  service and  what should be the nature of penalty is always depend on the relevant scheme   of   Rules   and  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of   each case, but either of the substantive penalties specified under Rule 27  of   the  Rules,  1978  including  dismissal   from  service  are  not open to be inflicted on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of forfeiture of gratuity commensurate with the nature of guilt may be inflicted upon a delinquent employee provided under Rule  34.3 of  Rules,  1978 read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972.”

  SC Judgment dated 27.05.2020 - Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Chaubey (1,006.0 KiB, 2,736 hits)

— SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law

  SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 - Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another (80.0 KiB, 3,937 hits)

In case of minor penalty, due promotion to be granted in accordance with the rules

  SC Judgment dated 30.07.2013 - DHBVNL, Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar & Others V. Yashvir Singh Gulia (163.7 KiB, 4,334 hits)

Indiscipline – Misbehaviour

  SC Judgment dated 24.09.2013 - Davalsab Husainsab Mulla Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (223.4 KiB, 7,262 hits)

 Investigation of Corruption Charges against against JS and above rank Officers

  SC Judgment dated 06.05.2014 - Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (477.7 KiB, 6,428 hits)

Judicial Review – Limitations

  SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 12,248 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 14.08.2014 - The LIC of India & Ors. Vas. S. Vasanthi (232.9 KiB, 3,996 hits)

Labour Court/Tribunal Award

  SC Judgment dated 09.08.2016 - Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. Roy, Chairman, LIC of India & Anr. (243.2 KiB, 4,267 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 12,248 hits)

Leave Rules

— Child Care Leave

  SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - Kakali Ghosh Vs. Chief Secretary, A&N Administration & Ors. (186.4 KiB, 6,646 hits)

Major Penalty without Inquiry

  SC Judgment dated 13.05.2014 - Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (173.8 KiB, 7,430 hits)

Medical Claim for Treatment at Non-Empanelled Hospital

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 06.09.2023 - Union of India and Ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Gaur (reg. medical claim for treatment at a non-empanelled hospital) (1.1 MiB, 971 hits)

Misappropriation

  SC Judgment dated 05.01.2015 - Diwan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others (177.6 KiB, 6,971 hits)

Natural Justice — Quasi-Judicial Authority-Administrative Authority-Natural Justice

  SC Judgment dated 18.03.2013 - Nirmal J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (442.3 KiB, 8,293 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 29.04.1969 - A.K. Kraipak & Ors, etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (51.4 KiB, 6,258 hits)

Overtime Allowance
— Government staff not entitled to overtime work allowance: SC

  SC Judgment dated 18.04.2023 - Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc. (238.8 KiB, 2,221 hits)

Pension/Gratuity

  SC Judgement dated 14.08.2013 - State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (247.5 KiB, 1,975 hits)

— Disability Pension – “A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same.” … “Since the disability has in each case been assessed at more than 20%, their claim to disability pension could not have been repudiated by the appellants.” –

  SC Judgment dated 13.02.2015 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh (222.7 KiB, 13,204 hits)

— Pension and Gratuity

SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law

  SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 - Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another (80.0 KiB, 3,937 hits)

Pension can not be can not be denied without the authority of law 

  SC Judgment dated 14.08.2013 - State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr (242.4 KiB, 2,181 hits)

 — Pension relief for all the other employees who have availed SBI-VRS 2000 after having completed 15 years of pensionable service

  SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India & Others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (652.0 KiB, 7,991 hits)

  Promotion

— Consideration for Promotion – Consideration for promotion a fundamental right.

  SC Judgment dated 09.01.2014 - Major General H.M. Singh, VSM Vs. Union of India and Anr. (235.1 KiB, 19,039 hits)

— RRs

  SC Judgment dated 23.08.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri G.R. Rama Krishna & Anr. (170.4 KiB, 2,486 hits)

Punishment

— Punishment to be commensurate with Articles of Charge

  SC Judgment dated 03.01.2014 - Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal Vs. Union of India & Ors (169.2 KiB, 9,076 hits)

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988

According to the Supreme Court, they are of the opinion that the courts below have erred in law in holding that accused Ramesh Gelli and Sridhar Subasri, who were Chairman/Managing Director and Executive Director of GTB (Global Trust Bank) respectively, were not public servants for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

  SC Judgment dated 23.02.2016 - CBI, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell Vs. Ramesh Gelli and Others (205.1 KiB, 5,110 hits)

Punishment under the PC Act

— Section 13 of the PC Act

“… … the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification and, thus, we are constrained to hold that it would be wholly un-safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as well. In the result, the appeal succeeds.” 

  SC Judgment dated 14.09.2015 - P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. The Distt. Inspector of Police and Anr. (Non-Reportable) (224.2 KiB, 4,710 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 14.11.2014 - Anotony Cardoza Vs. State of Kerala (150.1 KiB, 9,487 hits)

Recovery
— Courts can’t order recovery after quashing appointment

  SC Judgment dated 01.11.2013 - Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors. (316.0 KiB, 7,037 hits)

— No recovery of overpayment of salary in higher scale if there was no misrepresentation made by the appellant/employee

  SC Judgment dated 16.12.2008 - Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (163.4 KiB, 8,514 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 19.09.1994 - Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (11.0 KiB, 1,471 hits)

— Hon’ble SC has summarized 5 situations, “wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law.”

  SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 - State of Punjab and other etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (212.2 KiB, 14,173 hits)

Reinstatement – Salary

  SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - R.S. Misra Vs. Union of India and Others (177.9 KiB, 3,029 hits)

Reopening of the inquiry qua charge sheet after 30 years or so would not serve any purpose

  SC Judgment dated 29.01.2014 - State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. (186.1 KiB, 6,362 hits)

Reservation

— Benefit of Reservation in the original state

SC: “… … a  person  who  is  recognised  as  a  member  of Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  in  his  original State, will  be entitled to all  the benefits of reservation under  the Constitution in that  State only  and not  in other  States/Union Territories and not  entitled to the benefits  of  reservation  in  the  migrated  State/Union Territory.”

  SC Judgment dated 30.08.2018 - Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. (802.1 KiB, 3,650 hits)

— Benefit on Reconversion 

  SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - K.P. Manu Vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate (331.3 KiB, 11,823 hits)

Caste Certificate/False Caste Claim 

  SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 - Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (497.6 KiB, 17,431 hits)

  SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 4,296 hits)

— DOPT O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22.7.1997 regarding lower qualifying marks, lesser standard of evaluation for SC/ST candidates for reservation in promotion is declared illegal.

  SC Judgment dated 15.07.2014 - Rohtas Bhankhar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another (201.2 KiB, 8,304 hits)

Migration to General Seat

  SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 - Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors. (434.8 KiB, 6,350 hits)

— No Fundamental Right to Reservation
It has, inter alia, been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. as under:-
“16.  …  … In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in State services. Even if the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court, no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh Chand Gautam (supra). Therefore, the direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services on the basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and is accordingly set aside. … …”

  SC Judgment dated 07.02.2020 - Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (87.7 KiB, 19,285 hits)

Reservation for Jats Quashed

  SC Judgment dated 17.03.2015 - Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India (365.7 KiB, 11,947 hits)

— Reservation for Marathas and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
Hon’ble Supreme Court, on May 05, 2021, unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.
The bench struck down the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 to the extent it held Marathas as a socially and economically backward class as violating the principles of equality. The bench struck down the reservation given to Marathas in job and education. However, the bench clarified that the judgment will not affect the PG Medical Admissions under Maratha quota made till 09.09.2020.
The bench held that there was no need to revisit the 50% ceiling limit on reservation laid down by the 9-judge bench decision in the Indira Sawhney case.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power of states to identify “Socially and Educationally Backward Classes(SEBCs)”. (Source: Livelaw.in)

  SC Judgment dated 05.05.2021 - Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. (1.5 MiB, 3,858 hits)

— Reservation in Single Post 

  SC Judgment dated 16.05.2008 - Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Anr. (263.5 KiB, 5,701 hits)

— Reservation for PWDs and Other Judgements

Three percent reservation to PWD in all IDENTIFIED POSTS in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts

  SC Judgment dated 30.06.2016 - Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (328.0 KiB, 4,823 hits)

  SC Order dated 12.09.2014 - Union of India and Others Vs. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (259.1 KiB, 8,654 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 08.10.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. (330.9 KiB, 6,671 hits)

  SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,744 hits)

  Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,951 hits)

  Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 5,033 hits)

— Reservation for PwDs (Handicapped) in Promotion
—– The Supreme Court on June 28, 2021 ruled that reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) mandated by Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is applicable to promotions as well (State of Kerala vs. Leesamma Joseph).

  SC Judgment dated 28.06.2021 - The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph (120.0 KiB, 14,321 hits)

— Reservation for SCs/STs in promotion

(i) Reservation in Promotions
Reservation in Promotions: Supreme Court Holds Cadre As Unit For Collecting Quantifiable Data On Adequacy of Representation; Collection Of Data On Entire Service Meaningless

  SC Judgment dated 28.01.2022 - Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (194.4 KiB, 3,887 hits)

(ii) No Reservation in Promotions Without Examining Adequacy of Representation in Promotional Posts: Supreme Court
SC: “… … The Resolution has  no  legal  basis. … While it is open for the State to confer benefit even through  an  executive  order  by  applying  mandatory  requirements  as contemplated under Article 16(4A) but the Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is  merely  issued by referring to the instructions of  the Union of  India without examining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts, as held by this Court.” –

  SC Judgment dated 17.04.2020 - Pravakar Mallick & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors. (88.9 KiB, 14,532 hits)

(iii) SC: “Finally,   it   may   also   be   noted   that   under   the Government Order dated 13 April 1999, reservation in promotion in favour of SC‘s and ST‘s has been provided until the representation for thesecategories reaches 15 per  cent and  3per  cent, respectively. The State has informed the Court that the above Government Order is applicable to KPTCL and PWD, as well.
K   Conclusion 
144.  For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in BK Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analyzing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj.  The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by BK Pavitra Iin respect of the Reservation Act2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling  power conferred  by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.”   

  SC Judgment dated 10.05.2019 - B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (914.3 KiB, 11,786 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others (429.0 KiB, 15,091 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 11.03.2016 - Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (287.6 KiB, 3,955 hits)

— Reservation in Promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II and upward up to Scale-VI in Public Sector Banks

  SC Judgment dated 08.01.2016 - Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors. (286.3 KiB, 6,734 hits)

  SC Judgement dated 09.01.2015 - Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors. (325.0 KiB, 16,863 hits)

— Reservation for Transgender Persons

  SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others (525.2 KiB, 12,879 hits)

— Scruting Committee

  SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 4,296 hits)

— Uncategorised

  SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,744 hits)

  Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,951 hits)

  Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 5,033 hits)

Res Judicata

  SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 8,601 hits)

Retirement Age

  SC Judgment dated 24.09.2014 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Atul Shukla etc. (321.4 KiB, 7,339 hits)

Sanction for Prosecution

  SC Judgment dated 19.08.2019 - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others V. Pramod V. Sawant and Another (375.5 KiB, 1,559 hits)

Second Marriage

  SC Judgment dated 09.02.2015 - Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (207.4 KiB, 12,469 hits)

Seniority – Ad Hoc Service

  SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - State of Haryana & Others Vs. Vijay Singh and Others (65.3 KiB, 3,611 hits)

Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Compensation to Aggrieved/Complainant * Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC * Uncategorised

— Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ for Improper Handling of Complaint
Hon’ble SC has, inter alia, held –
– The   impugned   order   of   compulsory   retirement   passed   under Rule 135 against the appellant/petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the judgment.
– The   respondent(s) (Union of India) was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the appellant/petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity ­ as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment.

  SC Judgment dated 24.04.2020 - Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Anr. (600.5 KiB, 1,982 hits)

— Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC
SC: “We, thus, are of the view that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. xxx
26. Before we close, we once more make it clear that with regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority.” [Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC]

  SC Judgment dated 21.08.2019 - Dr. P.S. Malik Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. (125.0 KiB, 1,815 hits)

— Uncategorised

  SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 - Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others (378.3 KiB, 9,789 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 19.10.2012 - Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs. Union of India and others (265.9 KiB, 1,823 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 20.01.1999 - Apparel Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (46.0 KiB, 2,390 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 13.08.1997 - Visakha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (37.3 KiB, 1,449 hits)

Simultaneous Proceedings
— SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” [Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence]

  SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah (94.2 KiB, 1,604 hits)

— SC: “Para 10 … …. This Court was of the opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar. However, it is desirable to stay departmental inquiry till conclusion of the criminal case if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact.”

  SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. (66.3 KiB, 1,661 hits)

—SC: “13. … … It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court.” – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings]

  SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings] (66.3 KiB, 1,564 hits)

— An employee, sacked following disciplinary proceedings, cannot seek reinstatement as a “matter of right” after acquittal from a criminal court on the same charges 

  SC Judgement dated 28.11.2013 - State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sankar Ghosh (184.7 KiB, 8,048 hits)

— SC: “In the peculiar circumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would also be entitled to his cost which is quantified as Rs.15,000/-.”

  SC Judgment dated 30.03.1999 - Capt. M. Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (50.2 KiB, 3,078 hits)

Suspension
… the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.”

  SC Judgment dated 16.02.2015 - Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. (231.4 KiB, 12,579 hits)

Termination

  SC Judgment dated 13.01.2015 - Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (196.1 KiB, 12,530 hits)

 Transparency in Services (Minimum fixed tenure, recording of oral directions, etc.)

  SC Judgment dated 31.10.2013 - T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (290.3 KiB, 7,986 hits)

Unauthorized Absence

— Unauthorised Absence

  SC Judgment dated 15.02.2012 - Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (163.4 KiB, 3,521 hits)

— Unauthorised Absence on Medical Grounds

  SC Judgment dated 07.07.2014 - Chhel Singh Vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali & Ors (134.3 KiB, 4,835 hits)

Unconditional Apology

  SC Judgment dated 29.07.2013 - Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, UP Gramin Bank) & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh (217.8 KiB, 1,700 hits)

VRS — Pension relief for all the other employees who have availed SBI-VRS 2000 after having completed 15 years of pensionable service

  SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India & Others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (652.0 KiB, 7,991 hits)

—

Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement

  SC Judgment dated 22.07.2008 - Director General ESIC & Anr. Vs. Puroshottam Malani (69.4 KiB, 4,760 hits)

Uncategorized

  SC Judgement dated 19.08.2011 - State of UP & Ors. Vs. Luxmi Kant Shukla (149.9 KiB, 1,836 hits)

  SC judgement dated 01.03.2011 - State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (51.3 KiB, 2,276 hits)

  SC judgement dated 27.08.2010 - Union of India & anr. vs. Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar (118.7 KiB, 4,404 hits)

  SC judgement dated 18.08.2010 - Union of India & ors. vs. P.C. Ramakrishnayya (152.7 KiB, 3,192 hits)

  SC Judgement dated 13.08.2010 - State of M.P. vs. Harishankr Bhagwan Tripathi (93.7 KiB, 2,553 hits)

  SC Judgement dated 12.08.2010 - M.A.A. Annamalai vs. State of Kerala & another (158.4 KiB, 2,530 hits)

  SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,744 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 19.12.2008 - Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National bank & Ors. (128.2 KiB, 2,854 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 29.10.1971 - Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur (34.2 KiB, 2,526 hits)

B. High Court Judgements

Adultery * Compulsory Retirement * Delay in conducting departmental inquiry * Gratuity * Habitual Indebtedness * Pension * Reservation for PWDs * Sexual Harassment * Suspension * Voluntary Retirement

Adultery
Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried.

  Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 - Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (248.8 KiB, 1,783 hits)

Compulsory Retirement — “… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma. The rule of compulsory retirement has been held to hold the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public administration.”  

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 - Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others (149.6 KiB, 4,739 hits)

Delay in conducting departmental inquiry
— Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings

Delhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 - D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. (754.0 KiB, 1,630 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 6,130 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 6,130 hits)

Gratuity
— An employee is an employee, casual, ad-hoc or part time, under the Payment of Gratuity Act: Delhi HC
Delhi HC: “The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2. … … :
The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis of the wages / emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.” –

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 17.11.2019 - National Bal Bhawan Vs. Vandana, Roopa Sharma and Ors. (309.1 KiB, 1,473 hits)

— The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court. 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.10.2018 - Vijay Krishan V. The State Trading Corporation & Ors. (450.2 KiB, 2,185 hits)

Habitual Indebtedness

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 21.12.2012 - G.C. Verma Vs. UOI and Ors. (47.7 KiB, 1,177 hits)

Pension 

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.03.2015 - N. Bhardwaja Vs. Union of India & Ors. (221.8 KiB, 4,852 hits)

Reservation for PWDs

  Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 - National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (132.5 KiB, 10,777 hits)

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 15.07.2011 - Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others (176.8 KiB, 1,080 hits)

Sexual harassment 

— Bombay High Court: Guidelines to Protect Identities of Parties Involved

  Bombay HC Judgement dated 24.09.2021 - P Vs. A & Ors. (160.6 KiB, 6,672 hits)

— Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.”

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 - Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors. (1.5 MiB, 2,101 hits)

— Delhi High Court: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 - Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. (336.3 KiB, 5,291 hits)

Suspension
Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order
Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
xxx                               xxx
14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 - Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors. (297.5 KiB, 1,425 hits)

Voluntary Retirement

Employee can withdraw request for voluntary retirement any time before its acceptance.
Delhi HC: “… … the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 rejecting the petitioner‟s request for withdrawal of her application for voluntary retirement is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have validly withdrawn her request for voluntarily retirement.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 27.09.2019 - Poonam Garg Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. through its MD & Ors. (648.8 KiB, 11,975 hits)

C. CAT Judgements

  Report - Analysis of Cases Disposed of by the CAT (As on DOPT website - 17.04.2014) (655.3 KiB, 6,644 hits)

— Charge-Sheet & Annexures must be signed by the Disciplinary Authority on each page

  CAT Judgement dated 27.02.2012 - C. Punnusamy Vs. Union of India & Ors. (18.9 KiB, 8,026 hits)

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters and Other Subjects

13/09/2023 Comments Off on Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters and Other Subjects

More:  High Court Judgements * Latest DOPT/CVC/RTI/MOF/CGHS/DPE Circulars/Orders * Court Judgments on Service Matters * NCDRC/Consumer Forum Judgements  * Vigilance Clearance * Right to Information Circulars/Orders * Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates * Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs 

 SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS

  • Disciplinary Proceedings Against Deputationist
    – SC Judgment dated 04.09.2023 – Sunil Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • Delhi Govt. Has Powers Over Services In NCT
    The conclusions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 11.05.2023 included the following:-
    “d. The executive power of NCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power, that is, it shall extend to all matters with respect to which it has the power to legislate;”
    “i) NCTD has legislative and executive power over “Services”, that is, Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule because:
    (I) The definition of State under Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act 1897 applies to the term “State” in Part XIV of the Constitution. Thus, Part XIV is applicable to Union territories; and
    (II) The exercise of rule-making power under the proviso to Article 309 does not oust the legislative power of the appropriate authority to make laws over Entry 41 of the State List.” – SC Judgment dated 11.05.2023 – Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India 
  • Government staff not entitled to overtime work allowance: SC
    >>>     SC Judgment dated 18.04.2023 – Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc. – Referring to FR 11, Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that there was actually no scope for the respondents to seek payment of Double Over Time Allowance. “It is needless to say that no benefit can be claimed by anyone dehors the statutory rules.”
    Therefore, even while allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the appellants not to effect any recovery from those to whom payments have already been made.
  • Employer cannot terminate employee for suppression of criminal case: Supreme Court 
    SC: “18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable…”. The Respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice. It was further directed that the Appellant was not entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc.— SC Judgment dated 02.05.2022 – Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • Equal Pay for Equal Work Not a Fundamental Right
    – SC Judgment dated 27.01.2022 – State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and Anr.
  • Reservation for PwDs (Handicapped) in Promotion
    – The Supreme Court on June 28, 2021 ruled that reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) mandated by Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is applicable to promotions as well (State of Kerala vs. Leesamma Joseph). – SC Judgment dated 28.06.2021 – The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph
  • Reservation for Marathas and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
    Hon’ble Supreme Court, on May 05, 2021, unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.
    The bench struck down the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 to the extent it held Marathas as a socially and economically backward class as violating the principles of equality. The bench struck down the reservation given to Marathas in job and education. However, the bench clarified that the judgment will not affect the PG Medical Admissions under Maratha quota made till 09.09.2020.
    The bench held that there was no need to revisit the 50% ceiling limit on reservation laid down by the 9-judge bench decision in the Indira Sawhney case.
    In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power of states to identify “Socially and Educationally Backward Classes(SEBCs)”. (Source: Livelaw.in) – SC Judgment dated 05.05.2021 – Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. 
  • Relaxation in aptitude test available to SC/ST applicable to the disabled   SC Order dated 08.07.2020 – Aryan Raj Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.
  • Benefit of Doubt
    SC: “Although, the   sample   was   received   in   the   office   of   the   public   analyst   on 20.08.1982 and the report was finalized on 07.09.1982 after the delay of 18 days. There is no evidence that the samples were not tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused. Moreover, the report of the public analyst   does   not   mention   that   the   sample   was   either   “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such   an   opinion,   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   establish   the requirements   of   Section   2   (1a)(f)   of   the   Act   (See  Delhi Administration.   v.   Sat   Sarup  Sharma,   1994  Supp (3) SCC 324). Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence under Section 16 (1) of the Act either before the trial court or the High Court.” – SC Judgment dated 30.07.2020 – Prem Chand Vs. State of Haryana
  • Gratuity
    Forfeiture of gratuity under the  Rules read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972
    SC: “… in  view of  Rule  34.3  of  the  Rules,  1978,  the employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. ….. In my considered view, after conclusion of the disciplinary  inquiry, if held guilty, indeed a penalty can be inflicted upon an employee/delinquent   who  stood  retired  from  service and  what should be the nature of penalty is always depend on the relevant scheme   of   Rules   and  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of   each case, but either of the substantive penalties specified under Rule 27  of   the  Rules,  1978  including  dismissal   from  service  are  not open to be inflicted on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of forfeiture of gratuity commensurate with the nature of guilt may be inflicted upon a delinquent employee provided under Rule  34.3 of  Rules,  1978 read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972.” –  SC Judgment dated 27.05.2020 – Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Chaubey
  • Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ for Improper Handling of Complaint
    Hon’ble SC has, inter alia, held –
    – The   impugned   order   of   compulsory   retirement   passed   under Rule 135 against the appellant/petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the judgment.
    – The   respondent(s) (Union of India) was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the appellant/petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity ­ as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment. –  SC Judgment dated 24.04.2020 – Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • Reservation in Promotion
    No Reservation in Promotions Without Examining Adequacy of Representation in Promotional Posts: Supreme Court
    SC: “… … The Resolution has  no  legal  basis. … While it is open for the State to confer benefit even through  an  executive  order  by  applying  mandatory  requirements  as contemplated under Article 16(4A) but the Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is  merely  issued by referring to the instructions of  the Union of  India without examining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts, as held by this Court.” –  SC Judgment dated 17.04.2020 – Pravakar Mallick & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors.
  • COVID-19 – Guidelines for Courts
    SC: This (Social Distancing) is not a matter of discretion but duty. … every High Court is authorised to determine the modalities which are suitable to the temporary transition to the use of video conferencing technologies. … The District Courts in each State shall adopt the mode of Video Conferencing prescribed by the concerned High Court. – SC Order dated 06.04.2020 in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.5/2020 reg. Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic
  • RTI (Multiple Sections)
    SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI  Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
    (ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – (Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents)-  SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 – Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another
  • Simultaneous Proceedings
    — SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” [Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence] –  SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 – Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah 
    SC: “Para 10 … …. This Court was of the opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar. However, it is desirable to stay departmental inquiry till conclusion of the criminal case if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact.” [Simultaneous Proceedings] – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. 
    SC: “In the peculiar circumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would also be entitled to his cost which is quantified as Rs.15,000/-.”- SC Judgment dated 30.03.1999 – Capt. M. Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.
  • No Fundamental Right to Reservation
    It has, inter alia, been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. as under:-
    “16.  …  … In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in State services. Even if the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court, no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh Chand Gautam (supra). Therefore, the direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services on the basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and is accordingly set aside. … …” – SC Judgment dated 07.02.2020 – Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
  • Multiple Sections of RTI Act & Personal Information
    SC: “59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information.  Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.”  [Secs. 8, 8(1)(j), 9, 11(1), Art. 19(1) of the Constitution; Personal Information such as qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. and Personal Information such as medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc.] –  SC Judgment dated 13.11.2019 – Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
  • Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)
    SC: “We, thus, are of the view that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. xxx
    26. Before we close, we once more make it clear that with regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority.” [Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC] – SC Judgment dated 21.08.2019 – Dr. P.S. Malik Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr.
    Sanction for Prosecution
    SC: “15. It is therefore, held that the question of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. with regard to appellants nos.3 and 4 treating them to be ‘public servant’ simply does not arise because of their absorption in the Corporation.” [Sanction for Prosecution] –  SC Judgment dated 19.08.2019 – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others V. Pramod V. Sawant and Another
  • RTI: NGOs are within the ambit of RTI Act
    SC: “35. These are substantial payments and amount to almost half the expenditure of the Colleges/School and more than 95% of the expenditure as far as the teaching and other staff is concerned. Therefore, in our opinion, these Colleges/School are substantially financed and are public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.
    36. As far as these cases are concerned, we find from the judgments of the High Court that the aspect with regard to substantial financing has not been fully taken into consideration, as explained by us above. Therefore, though we hold that these bodies are NGOs, the issue whether these are substantially financed or not needs to be decided by the High Court. The High Court shall give both the parties opportunity to file documents and decide the issue in light of the law laid down by us.” [Section 2(h); NGOs] –     SC Judgment dated 17.09.2019 – D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions & Ors.
  • Simultaneous Proceedings
    SC: “13. … … It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court.” – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings] – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings]
  • Migration to General Seat
    SC: Reserved category candidate can’t migrate to general seat after availing age relaxation. – SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 – Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors.
  • RESERVATION FOR SCs/STs IN PROMOTION
    SC: “Finally,   it   may   also   be   noted   that   under   the Government Order dated 13 April 1999, reservation in promotion in favour of SC‘s and ST‘s has been provided until the representation for thesecategories reaches 15 per  cent and  3per  cent, respectively. The State has informed the Court that the above Government Order is applicable to KPTCL and PWD, as well.
    K   Conclusion
    144.  For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in BK Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analyzing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj.  The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by BK Pavitra Iin respect of the Reservation Act2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling  power conferred  by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.” –   SC Judgment dated 10.05.2019 – B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 
    SC: “Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven–Judge Bench. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) is held to be invalid to this extent.” – SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others
  • CIC & Information Commissioners
    SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 – Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others
  • CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service
    SC: “24.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the Appellants to issue a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error which calls for the interference by this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.” – SC Judgement dated 05.02.2019 – Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Harananda & Ors.
  • Adultery (Sec.497 of IPC struck down)
    SC: “18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and the anomalies in Section 497, as enumerated in para 11 above, it is declared that:
    (i) Section 497 is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
    (ii) Section 198(2) of the Cr.P.C. which contains the procedure for prosecution under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. shall be unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section 497.
    (iii) The decisions in Sowmithri Vishnu (supra), V. Rewathi (supra) and W. Kalyani (supra) hereby stand overruled.” –  SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Joseph Shine v. Union of India
  • Accident Claim/Liability of Accident
    “The law is thus well settled and can be summarised:-
    “Even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person … ……
    Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person.””-  SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 – Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors.
  • Court Martial
    SC: Army personnel entitled for legal representation during summary court martial – SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 – Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. 
  • Pension and Gratuity
    SC: “It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold – even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation.” – SC Judgment dated 13.02.2015 – Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh
  • RTI (Differently-Abled)
    SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.” – SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
  • Migration to General Seat
    SC: Reserved category candidate can’t migrate to general seat after availing age relaxation. – SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 – Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors.
  • RESERVATION FOR SCs/STs IN PROMOTION
    SC: “Finally,   it   may   also   be   noted   that   under   the Government Order dated 13 April 1999, reservation in promotion in favour of SC‘s and ST‘s has been provided until the representation for thesecategories reaches 15 per  cent and  3per  cent, respectively. The State has informed the Court that the above Government Order is applicable to KPTCL and PWD, as well.
    K   Conclusion
    144.  For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in BK Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analyzing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj.  The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by BK Pavitra Iin respect of the Reservation Act2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling  power conferred  by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.” –   SC Judgment dated 10.05.2019 – B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 
    SC: “Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven–Judge Bench. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) is held to be invalid to this extent.” – SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others
  • CIC & Information Commissioners
    SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 – Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others
  • CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service
    SC: “24.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the Appellants to issue a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error which calls for the interference by this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.” – SC Judgement dated 05.02.2019 – Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Harananda & Ors.
  • Accident Claim/Liability of Accident
    “The law is thus well settled and can be summarised:-
    “Even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person … ……
    Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person.””-  SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 – Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors.
  • Court Martial
    SC: Army personnel entitled for legal representation during summary court martial – SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 – Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr.
  • Adultery (Sec.497 of IPC struck down)
    SC: “18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and the anomalies in Section 497, as enumerated in para 11 above, it is declared that:
    (i) Section 497 is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
    (ii) Section 198(2) of the Cr.P.C. which contains the procedure for prosecution under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. shall be unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section 497.
    (iii) The decisions in Sowmithri Vishnu (supra), V. Rewathi (supra) and W. Kalyani (supra) hereby stand overruled.” –  SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Joseph Shine v. Union of India
  • RTI (Differently-Abled)
    SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.” – SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
  • RESERVATION FOR SCs/STs IN PROMOTION
    SC: “Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven–Judge Bench. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) is held to be invalid to this extent.” – SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others
  • HOMOSEXUALITY/GAY SEX/SECTION 377 
    Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 06.09.2018 in the case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, has ruled as under:-
    “i. In view of the aforesaid findings, it is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion.
    ii. The declaration of the aforesaid reading down of Section 377 shall not, however, lead to the re-opening of any concluded prosecutions, but can certainly be relied upon in all pending matters whether they are at the trial, appellate, or revisional stages.
    iii. The provisions of Section 377 will continue to govern non-consensual sexual acts against adults, all acts of carnal intercourse against minors, and acts of beastiality.
    iv. The judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. is hereby overruled for the reasons stated in paragraph 19.” –  SC Judgment dated 06.09.2018 – Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice
  • BENEFIT OF RESERVATION IN THE ORIGINAL STATE
    SC: “… … a  person  who  is  recognised  as  a  member  of Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  in  his  original State, will  be entitled to all  the benefits of reservation under  the Constitution in that  State only  and not  in other  States/Union Territories and not  entitled to the benefits  of  reservation  in  the  migrated  State/Union Territory.” – SC Judgment dated 30.08.2018 – Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors.
  • GRATUITY
    SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law – SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 – Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another
  • SC: “It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter.” – SC Order dated 05.06.2018 – The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Vijay Ghogne & Ors.
  • CGHS
    SC: “15) … In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the treatment of the petitioner in non-empanelled hospital was genuine because there was no option left with him at the relevant time. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,99,555/- to the writ petitioner. We also make it clear that the said decision is confined to this case only.
    16) ….. we are of the opinion that all such claims shall be attended by a Secretary level High Powered Committee in the concerned Ministry which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. We, hereby, direct the concerned Ministry to device a Committee for grievance redressal of the retired pensioners consisting of Special Directorate General, Directorate General, 2 (two) Additional Directors and 1 (one) Specialist in the field which shall ensure timely and hassle free disposal of the claims within a period of 7 (seven) days. … we are of the opinion that there shall be a timeframe for finalization and disbursement of the claim amounts of pensioners. In this view, we are of the opinion that after submitting the relevant papers for claim by a pensioner, the same shall be reimbursed within a period of 1 (one) month.” – SC Judgement dated 13.04.2018 – Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India
  • SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act)
    The Supreme Court has Issued a slew of guidelines to protect public servants and private employees from arbitrary arrests under the Atrocities Act. The public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority. In the case of private employees, the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned should allow it. Besides, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the FIR is registered to check whether the case falls within the parameters of the Atrocities Act and if it is frivolous or motivated. – SC Judgment dated 20.03.2018 – Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
  • EUTHANASIA AND ‘LIVING WILL’
    Euthanasia and ‘Living Will’ allowed by Supreme Court. – SC Judgment dated 09.03.2018 – Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another
  • RTI
    SC: “Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest.” (Emphasis Added.) (Sections 8,9,11) –  SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 – Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc.
  • RTI
    Service details of employees amount to ‘personal information’ under the RTI Act – SC Judgment dated 31.08.2017 – Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager Vs. C.S. Shyam & Anr.
  • PRIVACY
    Privacy is a fundamental rights. – SC Judgment dated 24.08.2017 – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 
  • PUBLIC AUTHORITY
    A Public Authority cannot act arbitrarily: SC – SC Judgement dated 24.08.2017 – M/s. Ajar Enterprises Private Limited Vs. Satyanarayan Somani and Ors.
  • FALSE CASTE CLAIM
    Times of India: “The Supreme Court on Thursday said anyone found guilty of using a forged caste certificate for getting education and employment will lose their degree and their job.
    In addition, they will also be punished, said the top court.” – SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 – Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors.
  • INSURANCE
    A  forcible  entry  is required for a claim to be  allowed  under  the  policy  for  burglary/house breaking. – SC Judgement dated 22.08.2016 – M/s. Industrial Promotion & Investment Corp. of Orissa Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
  • LABOUR LAW
    SC: “These temporary and badli workers, who are entitled for regularization as permanent workmen in terms of our March 18, 2015 judgment by applying the terms and conditions of the modified award of August 26, 1988, passed by Justice Jamdar, are held to be entitled to full back wages. However, keeping in mind the immense financial burden this would cause to LIC, we deem it fit to modify the relief only with regard to the back wages payable and therefore, we award 50% of the back wages with consequential benefits. The back wages must be calculated on the basis of the gross salary of the workmen, applicable as on the date as per the periodical revisions of pay scale as stated supra.” – SC Judgment dated 09.08.2016 – Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. Roy, Chairman, LIC of India & Anr.
  • APPOINTMENT
    — Employer cannot terminate employee for suppression of criminal case: Supreme Court 
    SC: “18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable…”. The Respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice. It was further directed that the Appellant was not entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. — SC Judgment dated 02.05.2022 – Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • — Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that non-disclosure of petty offences of the past, like shouting slogans, in the curriculum vitae should not ordinarily be a ground to deny a job. Other guidelines are also contained in their judgement dated 21.07.2016.  SC Judgment dated 21.07.2016 – Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
  • Disciplinary Action against authorities exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions
    SC: “The issue which arises in such cases is whether there are circumstances from which an inference that extraneous considerations have actuated a judicial officer can legitimately be drawn. Such an inference cannot obviously be drawn merely from a hypothesis that a decision is erroneous. A wrong decision can yet be a bona fide error of judgment. Inadvertence is consistent with an honest error of judgment. A charge of misconduct against a judicial officer must be distinguished from a purely erroneous decision whether on law or on fact. … …” – SC Judgment dated 12.07.2016 – R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. 
  • RESERVATION FOR PWDs
    SC: “… … we declare the impugned memoranda as illegal and inconsistent with the 1995 Act. We further direct the Government to extend three percent reservation to PWD in all IDENTIFIED POSTS in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts.” –  SC Judgment dated 30.06.2016 – Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. Union of India & Others
  • RESERVATION FOR SCs/STs IN PROMOTION
    SC: “The relief in the present case, when appositely appreciated, tantamounts to a prayer for issue of a mandamus to take a step towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. In our considered opinion a writ of mandamus of such a nature cannot be issued.” – SC Judgment dated 11.03.2016 – Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
  • PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
    According to the Supreme Court, they are of the opinion that the courts below have erred in law in holding that accused Ramesh Gelli and Sridhar Subasri, who were Chairman/Managing Director and Executive Director of GTB (Global Trust Bank) respectively, were not public servants for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. –  SC Judgment dated 23.02.2016 – CBI, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell Vs. Ramesh Gelli and Others
  • DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONCLUDED WITHIN SIX MONTHS
    SC: “… … we are of the considered view that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.” – SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 – Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.
  • SC: “ … … it would be open to the concerned authority, namely, the State and the Banks to consider whether their demand is justified and it is feasible to provide reservation to SC/ST category persons in the matter of promotion in the officers’ category and if so, up to which scale/level.” – SC Judgment dated 08.01.2016 – Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors.
  • SC: “… …lower level economic and financial information, like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld under this exemption. This makes it necessary to think when or at what stage an information is to be provided i.e., the appropriate time of providing the information which will depend on nature of information sought for and the consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain. …” [Sections 8(1)(e) and 10 of the RTI Act & Art. 19(2) of the Constitution] – SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 – Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry 
  • LANDMARK JUDGEMENT – Sec. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Supreme Court has ruled that a party will not get more than 45 days for replying to a complaint in a consumer forum. The court said this period cannot be extended under any circumstances. – SC Judgment dated 04.12.2015 – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
  • SC: “… … the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification and, thus, we are constrained to hold that it would be wholly un-safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) read with Section 13(2) of Act as well. In the result, the appeal succeeds.” (The Prevention of Corruption Act) – SC Judgment dated 14.09.2015 – P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. The Distt. Inspector of Police and Anr. (Non-Reportable)
  • “… … we cannot agree with the view taken by the Union Government that Jats in the 9 (nine) States in question is a backward community so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes for the States concerned.” The Government’s notification bearing No. 63 dated 4.3.2014 including the Jats in the Central List of OBCs has been set aside and quashed. – SC Judgment dated 17.03.2015 – Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India
  • Pension relief for all the other employees who have availed SBI-VRS 2000 after having completed 15 years of pensionable service – SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 – Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India & Others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey
  • Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months –  SC Judgment dated 16.02.2015 – Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • Benefits of Reservation on Reconversion  – SC: “… we are inclined to hold that the appellant after reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby became a member of the scheduled caste.” – SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 – K.P. Manu Vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate
  • No compassionate appointment without qualification – SC Judgment dated 20.02.2015 – The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Revat Singh
  • Disability Pension – “A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same.” … “Since the disability has in each case been assessed at more than 20%, their claim to disability pension could not have been repudiated by the appellants.” –   SC Judgment dated 13.02.2015 – Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh
  • Appointment on bogus certificates set aside –  SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 – Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors.
  • Second marriage during the currency of first marriage – A practice did not acquire sanction of religion simply because it was permitted. Such a practice could be regulated by law without violating Article 25. – SC Judgment dated 09.02.2015 – Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
  • The amended definition of the expression “NPA” under Section 2(1)(o) of the SARFAESI Act is constitutionally valid. – SC Judgment dated 28.01.2015 – Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others
  • Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of section 503 of IPC. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. “…in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court should be extremely cautious to interfere with the investigation or trial of a criminal case and should not stall the investigation, save except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of offence and that continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of the court.” –  SC Judgment dated 20.01.2015 – Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
  • Once the Labour Court has exercised the discretion judicially, the High Court can interfere with the award, only if it is satisfied that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated by any fundamental flaws. – SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 – K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp.
  • If the order of termination is void ab initio, the workman is entitled to full back wages. – SC Judgment dated 13.01.2015 – Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
  • Reservation in Promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II and upward up to Scale-VI in Public Sector Banks – SC Judgement dated 09.01.2015 – Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors.
  • The amount misappropriated may be small or large, it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. – SC Judgment dated 05.01.2015 – Diwan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others
  • The Chief Justice of the High Court, having assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained in the complaint filed by the petitioner, ought not to be associated with the “inhouse procedure” in the present case. … – SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 – Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others
  • Hon’ble SC has summarized 5 situations, “wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law.” –  SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 – State of Punjab and other etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.
  • Punishment under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – SC Judgment dated 14.11.2014 – Antony Cardoza Vs. State of Kerala
  • SC: “Special leave petition is dismissed.” –  SC Order dated 12.09.2014 – Union of India and Others Vs. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (Arising out of final judgment and order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay)
    — Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 – National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. – Hon’ble Bombay High Court has directed to give benefits of reservation to PWDs in the matter of promotion to posts in the IAS by applying the O.M. dated 29 December 2005 and subsequent Office Memorandum consistent with the aforesaid judgment dated 8 October 2013 of the Supreme Court.
  • “… … it is extremely difficult to visualize that the High Court, on the first occasion, without having a lis before it in that regard, could even have thought of issuing a command to the Census Department to take all such measures towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country so that the social justice in its true sense, which is the need of the hour, could be achieved. This, irrefragably, is against the power conferred on the court. The High Court had not only travelled beyond the lis in the first round of litigation, but had really yielded to some kind of emotional perspective, possibly paving the adventurous path to innovate. It is legally impermissible. …” – SC Judgment dated 07.11.2014 – Census Commissioner & Others Vs. R. Krishnamurthy
  • “… … the classification made by the Government of India for purposes of different retirement age for Time Scale Officers and Select Officers does not stand scrutiny on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as rightly held by the Tribunal.” – SC Judgment dated 24.09.2014 – Union of India & Ors. Vs. Atul Shukla etc. 
  • DOPT O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22.7.1997 regarding lower qualifying marks, lesser standard of evaluation for SC/ST candidates for reservation in promotion is declared illegal. — SC Judgment dated 15.07.2014 – Rohtas Bhakhar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another
  • The order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police dispensing with the inquiry was totally unsustainable  and has been annulled.  SC Judgment dated 13.05.2014 – Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
  • SC: Judges can recall orders passed in open courts – Supreme Court’ Order dated 06.05.2014 – Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
  • The Supreme Court has struck down a single directive provision which barred CBI from investigating corruption charges against joint secretary and above rank officers without prior permission of the Centre. – SC Judgment dated 06.05.2014 – Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
  • Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, directed the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.–  SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 – National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others
  • Child Care Leave – SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 – Kakali Ghosh Vs. Chief Secretary, A&N Administration & Ors.
  • Reopening of the inquiry qua charge sheet after 30 years or so would not serve any purpose – SC Judgment dated 29.01.2014 – State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
  • Consideration for promotion a fundamental right. – SC Judgment dated 09.01.2014 – Major General H.M. Singh, VSM Vs. Union of India and Anr.
  • Punishment must be given according to charges – SC Judgment dated 03.01.2014 – Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal Vs. Union of India & Ors. Supreme Court makes homosexuality a crime again – SC Judgement dated 11.12.2013 – Suresh Kumar Koushal and another Vs. Naz Foundation and others
  • An employee, sacked following disciplinary proceedings, cannot seek reinstatement as a “matter of right” after acquittal from a criminal court on the same charges – SC Judgement dated 28.11.2013 – State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sankar Ghosh 
  • Live-In Relationship –  SC Judgement dated 26.11.2013 – Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma 
  • Courts can’t order recovery after quashing appointment –  SC Judgment dated 01.11.2013 – Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors.
  • Medical Negligence Case – SC Judgment dated 24.10.2013 – Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd. & Another
  • Transparency in Services (Minimum fixed tenure, recording of oral directions/instructions, etc.) – SC Judgment dated 31.10.2013 – T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
  • Reservation for PWDs – SC Judgment dated 08.10.2013 – Union of India & Ors. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors.
  • Cooperative Societies not covered under the RTI Act – SC Judgment dated 07.10.2013 – Thalappan Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. State of Kerala and others
  • Indiscipline – Misbehaviour – SC Judgment dated 24.09.2013 – Davalsab Husainsab Mulla Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation
  • It is a settled legal proposition that a departmental enquiry can be quashed on the ground of delay provided the charges are not very grave. – SC Judgment dated 29.04.2013 – Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors.
  • Quasi-Judicial Authority-Administrative Authority-Natural Justice – SC Judgment dated 18.03.2013 – Nirmal J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.. SC Judgment dated 29.04.1969 – A.K. Kraipak & Ors, etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors..
  • No recovery of the excess amount paid to the employees due to erroneous pay fixation done by the authorities – SC Judgment dated 16.12.2008 – Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
  • Sec.8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 – SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 – R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr..
  • SC: “…………… we direct that before the submission of any report by the Scrutiny Committee, his application for calling the witnesses for cross-examination must be disposed of, and appellant must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been examined before the Committee. We further direct the Scrutiny Committee to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law thereafter.   In case, the Scrutiny Committee has already taken a decision, the same being violative of the principles of natural justice, would stand vitiated.” –  SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 – Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
  • RESERVATION
    SC: No reservation in single post – SC Judgment dated 16.05.2008 – Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Anr.
  • ACR
    SC: “… ……If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment.” –   SC Judgment dated 12.05.2008 – Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others
    ——————————————————————————————–

    • Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters and Other Subjects

    Adultery (Sec.497 of IPC struck down)
    Census (Caste-Based)
    Consumer
    COVID-19 – Guidelines
    Criminal Law Criminal Intimidation * Facebook Comments * Quashing of FIR
    DRT Act & SARFAESI Act
    Education
    Euthanasia and ‘Living Will’
    Homosexuality/Gay Sex/SECTION 377
    Insurance
    Live-In Relationship
    Passport
    Public Authority
    RTI CIC & Information Commissioners, Sec. 8(1)(g) * Sec. 8(1)(j) * Sec. 10 * Sec. 11 * Sec. 20 * 24(1)
    To see High Court Judgments relating to RTI, please click here.
    SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act)
    Service Matters

    To see High Court Judgments on Service Matters, please click here.
    Transgender (TG) Community
    Others/Uncategorized    ———————————————————-

    Adultery (Sec.497 of IPC struck down)

      SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 - Joseph Shine v. Union of India (1.7 MiB, 1,325 hits)

    ——————————————————
    Benefit of Doubt

    SC: “Although, the   sample   was   received   in   the   office   of   the   public   analyst   on 20.08.1982 and the report was finalized on 07.09.1982 after the delay of 18 days. There is no evidence that the samples were not tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused. Moreover, the report of the public analyst   does   not   mention   that   the   sample   was   either   “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such   an   opinion,   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   establish   the requirements   of   Section   2   (1a)(f)   of   the   Act   (See  Delhi Administration.   v.   Sat   Sarup  Sharma,   1994  Supp (3) SCC 324). Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence under Section 16 (1) of the Act either before the trial court or the High Court.”

      SC Judgment dated 30.07.2020 - Prem Chand Vs. State of Haryana (365.1 KiB, 2,759 hits)

    —————————————

    CENSUS (CASTE-BASED)

      SC Judgment dated 07.11.2014 - Census Commissioner & Others Vs. R. Krishnamurthy (288.9 KiB, 6,192 hits)

      ———————————————————-
     CONSUMER
    — Medical Negligence Case

      SC Judgment dated 24.10.2013 - Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd. & Another (762.0 KiB, 4,284 hits)

    — Sec. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Supreme Court has ruled that a party will not get more than 45 days for replying to a complaint in a consumer forum. The court said this period cannot be extended under any circumstances. 

      SC Judgment dated 04.12.2015 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (215.0 KiB, 5,277 hits)

    ————————————————

    COVID-19 – Guidelines for Courts

    SC: This (Social Distancing) is not a matter of discretion but duty. … every High Court is authorised to determine the modalities which are suitable to the temporary transition to the use of video conferencing technologies. … The District Courts in each State shall adopt the mode of Video Conferencing prescribed by the concerned High Court.

      SC Order dated 06.04.2020 in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.5/2020 reg. Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic (57.0 KiB, 1,539 hits)

    ———————————————-

    CRIMINAL LAW
    Criminal Intimidation * Facebook Comments * Quashing of FIR

    Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of section 503 of IPC. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. “…in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court should be extremely cautious to interfere with the investigation or trial of a criminal case and should not stall the investigation, save except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of offence and that continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of the court.”

      SC Judgment dated 20.01.2015 - Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (198.0 KiB, 5,490 hits)

    ———————————————————–

    Delhi Government
    Delhi Govt. Has Powers Over Services In NCT
    The conclusions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 11.05.2023 included the following:-
    “d. The executive power of NCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power, that is, it shall extend to all matters with respect to which it has the power to legislate;”
    “i) NCTD has legislative and executive power over “Services”, that is, Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule because:
    (I) The definition of State under Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act 1897 applies to the term “State” in Part XIV of the Constitution. Thus, Part XIV is applicable to Union territories; and
    (II) The exercise of rule-making power under the proviso to Article 309 does not oust the legislative power of the appropriate authority to make laws over Entry 41 of the State List.”

      SC Judgment dated 11.05.2023 - Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (567.7 KiB, 1,874 hits)

    DRT ACT & SARFAESI ACT
    — Definition of NPA – The amended definition of the expression “NPA” under Section 2(1)(o) of the SARFAESI Act is constitutionally valid.

      SC Judgment dated 28.01.2015 - Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (392.3 KiB, 8,033 hits)

    — Others

      SC judgment dated 18.03.2011 - Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO Bank & Others (137.2 KiB, 1,812 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 07.02.2011 - Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (176.8 KiB, 1,635 hits)

      SC judgement dated 26.07.2010 - Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (153.3 KiB, 4,207 hits)

    ————————————————————
    EDUCATION

      SC Judgment dated 01.11.2012 - NCTE and another Vs. Venus Public Education Society and others (335.7 KiB, 1,582 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 10.7.2012 - Jaipuria Institutes of Management & Ors. Vs. AICTE (13.4 KiB, 1,030 hits)

      Supreme Court Judgment dated 11.02.2005 - Prof. Yashpal & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2.7 MiB, 1,626 hits)

    ————————————————————-
    Euthanasia and ‘Living Will’
    Euthanasia and ‘Living Will’ allowed by Supreme Court.

      SC Judgment dated 09.03.2018 - Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another (2.9 MiB, 1,815 hits)

    ————————————————————
    HOMOSEXUALITY/GAY SEX/SECTION 377   

    Insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is declared violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution: SC 

      SC Judgment dated 06.09.2018 - Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2.7 MiB, 1,410 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 11.12.2013 - Suresh Kumar Koushal and another Vs. Naz Foundation and others (601.9 KiB, 4,306 hits)

    ————————————————————
    INSURANCE

    Accident Claims

      SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 - Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors. (26.4 KiB, 1,543 hits)

    Liability of Accident

      SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 - Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors. (26.4 KiB, 1,543 hits)

    — A  forcible  entry  is required for a claim to be  allowed  under  the  policy  for  burglary/house breaking.

      SC Judgement dated 22.08.2016 - M/s. Industrial Promotion & Investment Corp. of Orissa Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (21.7 KiB, 2,305 hits)

    —

      SC judgement dated 31.08.2010 - Yadava Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another (121.8 KiB, 1,161 hits)

      SC judgement dated 22.07.2010 - Arun Kumar Agarwal & anr. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others (306.9 KiB, 1,890 hits)

    ————————————————————
    LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

      SC Judgement dated 26.11.2013 - Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma (328.4 KiB, 4,292 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 21.10.2010 - D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchnaiammal - Live-in relationship (136.6 KiB, 3,362 hits)

    ————————————————————
    PASSPORT

      SC Judgment dated 24.01.2008 - Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. (19.2 KiB, 6,950 hits)

    ————————————————————
    Privacy
    Privacy is a fundamental rights.

      SC Judgment dated 24.08.2017 - Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (3.0 MiB, 2,082 hits)

    ———————————————————–
    Public Authority
    A Public Authority cannot act arbitrarily: SC

      SC Judgement dated 24.08.2017 - M/s. Ajar Enterprises Private Limited Vs. Satyanarayan Somani and Ors. (405.2 KiB, 5,688 hits)

    ————————————————————

    Right to Information (RTI)

    CIC & Information Commissioners, Multiple Sections; Sec. 2(h), Sec. 8, Sec. 8(1)(g) * Sec. 8(1)(j) * Sec. 10 * Sec. 11 * Sec. 20 * 24(1)

    — Certified Copies of Court Documents
    SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI  Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
    (ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – [Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents]

      SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 - Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another (150.2 KiB, 8,455 hits)

    — CIC & Information Commissioners

      SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 - Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others (205.2 KiB, 8,859 hits)

    — Multiple Sections
    SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI  Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
    (ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – [Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents] 

      SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 - Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another (150.2 KiB, 8,455 hits)

    — Multiple Sections
    SC: “59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information.  Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.”  [Secs. 8, 8(1)(j), 9, 11(1), Art. 19(1) of the Constitution; Personal Information such as qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. and Personal Information such as medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc.]

      SC Judgment dated 13.11.2019 - Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (1.4 MiB, 1,946 hits)

    — Sec. 2(h)

      SC Judgment dated 17.09.2019 - D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions & Ors. (403.9 KiB, 1,160 hits)

    — Sec.8 
    SC: “Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest.” (Emphasis Added.) 

      SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 12,816 hits)

     — Section 8(1) 
    — SC: “… …lower level economic and financial information, like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld under this exemption. This makes it necessary to think when or at what stage an information is to be provided i.e., the appropriate time of providing the information which will depend on nature of information sought for and the consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain. …”  [Sections 8(1)(e) and 10 & Art. 19(2) of the Constitution]

      SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 - Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry (412.1 KiB, 3,609 hits)

     — Sec. 8(1)(g)

      SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 2,032 hits)

    — Sec. 8(1)(j)

      SC Judgment dated 31.08.2017 - Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager Vs. C.S. Shyam & Anr. (448.0 KiB, 17,692 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 03.10.2012 - Girish Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Informtion Commissioner & Ors. (177.5 KiB, 4,014 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 5,354 hits)

     — Sec.9 

      SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 12,816 hits)

     — Sec. 10

      SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 2,032 hits)

    — Sec. 11

      SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 12,816 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 5,354 hits)

    — Sec. 20
    — “Ordering withdrawal of the departmental action, if any, initiated against the PIO, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State Information Commission to decide the appeal filed by the PIO before it on merits and in accordance with law.”

      SC Judgment dated 13.12.2012 - Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (251.1 KiB, 2,686 hits)

    —————————————————————–
    — Cooperative Societies not covered under the RTI Act 

      SC Judgment dated 07.10.2013 - Thalappan Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. State of Kerala and others (324.2 KiB, 11,373 hits)

    — Differently-Abled
    SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.”

      SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (258.7 KiB, 8,516 hits)

     — Doctrine of Precedence

      SC Judgment dated 13.09.2012 - Namita Sharma Vs. Union of India (683.3 KiB, 1,618 hits)

    —————————————————————–
    — Uncategorized

      Supreme Court Judgment dated 02.09.2011 - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (198.3 KiB, 1,351 hits)

      Supreme Court Judgment dated 09.08.2011 - CBSE & Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (264.4 KiB, 1,544 hits)

      Supreme Court Judgment dated 18.04.2011 - P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. (26.2 KiB, 1,369 hits)

    —————————————————————–

    SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act)
    The Supreme Court has Issued a slew of guidelines to protect public servants and private employees from arbitrary arrests under the Atrocities Act. The public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority. In the case of private employees, the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned should allow it. Besides, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the FIR is registered to check whether the case falls within the parameters of the Atrocities Act and if it is frivolous or motivated.

      SC Judgment dated 20.03.2018 - Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. (305.4 KiB, 2,702 hits)

    SERVICE MATTERS – SUBJECT-WISE

    ACRs * Appointment * CGHS * Charge-Sheet * Compassionate Appointment * Conviction * Court Martial * Defending Officer/Friend of the Accused * Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings * Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Bias * Departmental Inquiry to be conducted in the preferred language of the employee * Disciplinary action for lapses while discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions * Disciplinary Authority/Power to Institute Disc. Proceedings * Equal Pay For Equal Work Not a Fundamental Right * Ex Parte Inquiry * Exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing of the criminal prosecution * Gratuity * Indiscipline – Misbehaviour * In case of minor penalty, due promotion to be granted in accordance with the rules * Investigation of Corruption Charges against against JS and above rank Officers * Judicial Review * Labour Court/Tribunal Award * Leave Rules – Child Care Leave (CCL) * Major Penalty without Inquiry * Misappropriation * Natural Justice – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Administrative Authority * NGO * Overtime Allowance * Passport * Pension and Gratuity * Promotion – Consideration for Promotion – RRs * Punishment to be commensurate with Articles of Charge * Punishment under the PC Act – Section 13 * Recovery * Reinstatement – Salary * Reopening of the inquiry qua charge sheet after 30 years or so would not serve any purpose * Reservation * Res Judicata * Retirement Age * Seniority – Ad Hoc Service * Sexual Harassment * Simultaneous Proceedings * Suspension * Termination * Transparency in Services (Minimum fixed tenure, recording of oral directions, etc.) * Unauthorized Absence * Unconditional Apology * Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement * Uncategorized

    ACRs
    — “However, it will be open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with law.”

      SC Judgment dated 23.04.2013 - Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (152.4 KiB, 4,130 hits)

    — “… ……If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment.”

      SC Judgment dated 12.05.2008 - Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (71.0 KiB, 4,742 hits)

    Appointment

    — Employer cannot terminate employee for suppression of criminal case: Supreme Court 
    SC: “18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable…”. The Respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice. It was further directed that the Appellant was not entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. 

      SC Judgment dated 02.05.2022 - Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (392.1 KiB, 3,065 hits)

    —

      SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 - Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (497.6 KiB, 17,431 hits)

     — Appointment on bogus certificate set aside

      SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 8,601 hits)

    — Non-disclosure of petty offences of the past, like shouting slogans, in the curriculum vitae should not ordinarily be a ground to deny a job. Other guidelines are also contained in their judgement dated 21.07.2016.

      SC Judgment dated 21.07.2016 - Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (384.7 KiB, 5,660 hits)

    CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service

    SC: “24.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the Appellants to issue a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error which calls for the interference by this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

      SC Judgement dated 05.02.2019 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Harananda & Ors. (452.7 KiB, 1,906 hits)

    CGHS 
    SC: “15) … In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the treatment of the petitioner in non-empanelled hospital was genuine because there was no option left with him at the relevant time. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,99,555/- to the writ petitioner. We also make it clear that the said decision is confined to this case only.
    16) ….. we are of the opinion that all such claims shall be attended by a Secretary level High Powered Committee in the concerned Ministry which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. We, hereby, direct the concerned Ministry to device a Committee for grievance redressal of the retired pensioners consisting of Special Directorate General, Directorate General, 2 (two) Additional Directors and 1 (one) Specialist in the field which shall ensure timely and hassle free disposal of the claims within a period of 7 (seven) days. … we are of the opinion that there shall be a timeframe for finalization and disbursement of the claim amounts of pensioners. In this view, we are of the opinion that after submitting the relevant papers for claim by a pensioner, the same shall be reimbursed within a period of 1 (one) month.”

      SC Judgement dated 13.04.2018 - Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (112.4 KiB, 2,653 hits)

    Charge-Sheet
    — The charge sheet/charge memo having not been approved by the disciplinary authority was non est in the eye of law.

      SC Judgment dated 05.09.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath (289.7 KiB, 17,708 hits)

         Compassionate Appointment
    — No compassionate appointment without qualification

      SC Judgment dated 20.02.2015 - The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Revat Singh (174.5 KiB, 7,083 hits)

    Conviction
    SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence

      SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah (94.2 KiB, 1,604 hits)

    Court Martial

      SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 2,348 hits)

    Defending Officer/Friend of the Accused

      SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 2,348 hits)

    Delay in Disciplinary/Inquiry Proceedings

    — It is a settled legal proposition that a departmental enquiry can be quashed on the ground of delay provided the charges are not very grave. 

      SC Judgment dated 29.04.2013 - Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors. (275.4 KiB, 12,733 hits)

    — SC: “… … we are of the considered view that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded with six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the limit frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.”

      SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 - Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. (185.6 KiB, 10,209 hits)

    Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Bias

      SC Judgment dated 18.10.2000 - Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. (53.6 KiB, 3,162 hits)

    Departmental Inquiry to be conducted in the preferred language of the employee

      SC Judgment dated 01.05.2013 - Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (30.8 KiB, 3,140 hits)

    Disciplinary action against authorities discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions

      SC Judgment dated 12.07.2016 - R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (262.1 KiB, 3,535 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 12.07.2016 - R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (262.1 KiB, 3,535 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 27.01.1993 - Union of India Vs. K.K. Dhawan (46.1 KiB, 3,504 hits)

    Disciplinary Authority/Power to Institute Disc. Proceedings 

      SC Judgment dated 15.10.2012 - UCO Bank & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Saha (227.4 KiB, 3,013 hits)

    Disciplinary Proceedings Against Deputationist

      CVC Circular dated 11.09.2023 - Observance of Vigilance Awareness Week 2023 (Theme, 'Say no to corruption; commit to the Nation') (4.5 MiB, 4,579 hits)

    Equal Pay for Equal Work Not a Fundamental Right

      SC Judgment dated 27.01.2022 - State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and Anr. (198.8 KiB, 2,999 hits)

    Ex Parte Inquiry

      SC Judgment dated 14.01.2013 - State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (216.6 KiB, 2,844 hits)

    Exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing of the criminal prosecution

      SC Judgment dated 31.08.2012 - NCT of Delhi Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (99.8 KiB, 3,033 hits)

    Gratuity
    — Forfeiture of gratuity under the  Rules read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972
    SC: “… in  view of  Rule  34.3  of  the  Rules,  1978,  the employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. ….. In my considered view, after conclusion of the disciplinary  inquiry, if held guilty, indeed a penalty can be inflicted upon an employee/delinquent   who  stood  retired  from  service and  what should be the nature of penalty is always depend on the relevant scheme   of   Rules   and  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of   each case, but either of the substantive penalties specified under Rule 27  of   the  Rules,  1978  including  dismissal   from  service  are  not open to be inflicted on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of forfeiture of gratuity commensurate with the nature of guilt may be inflicted upon a delinquent employee provided under Rule  34.3 of  Rules,  1978 read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972.”

      SC Judgment dated 27.05.2020 - Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Chaubey (1,006.0 KiB, 2,736 hits)

    — SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law

      SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 - Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another (80.0 KiB, 3,937 hits)

    Indiscipline – Misbehaviour

      SC Judgment dated 24.09.2013 - Davalsab Husainsab Mulla Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (223.4 KiB, 7,262 hits)

    In case of minor penalty, due promotion to be granted in accordance with the rules

      SC Judgment dated 30.07.2013 - DHBVNL, Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar & Others V. Yashvir Singh Gulia (163.7 KiB, 4,334 hits)

    Investigation of Corruption Charges against against JS and above rank Officers

      SC Judgment dated 06.05.2014 - Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (477.7 KiB, 6,428 hits)

    Judicial Review – Limitations

      SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 12,248 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 14.08.2014 - The LIC of India & Ors. Vas. S. Vasanthi (232.9 KiB, 3,996 hits)

    Labour Court/Tribunal Award

      SC Judgment dated 09.08.2016 - Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. Roy, Chairman, LIC of India & Anr. (243.2 KiB, 4,267 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 12,248 hits)

    Leave Rules

    — Child Care Leave

      SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - Kakali Ghosh Vs. Chief Secretary, A&N Administration & Ors. (186.4 KiB, 6,646 hits)

    Major Penalty without Inquiry

      SC Judgment dated 13.05.2014 - Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (173.8 KiB, 7,430 hits)

    Misappropriation

      SC Judgment dated 05.01.2015 - Diwan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others (177.6 KiB, 6,971 hits)

    Natural Justice

    — Quasi-Judicial Authority-Administrative Authority-Natural Justice

      SC Judgment dated 18.03.2013 - Nirmal J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (442.3 KiB, 8,293 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 29.04.1969 - A.K. Kraipak & Ors, etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (51.4 KiB, 6,258 hits)

    NGO

    — SC: “35. These are substantial payments and amount to almost half the expenditure of the Colleges/School and more than 95% of the expenditure as far as the teaching and other staff is concerned. Therefore, in our opinion, these Colleges/School are substantially financed and are public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.
    36. As far as these cases are concerned, we find from the judgments of the High Court that the aspect with regard to substantial financing has not been fully taken into consideration, as explained by us above. Therefore, though we hold that these bodies are NGOs, the issue whether these are substantially financed or not needs to be decided by the High Court. The High Court shall give both the parties opportunity to file documents and decide the issue in light of the law laid down by us.” [Section 2(h); NGOs]

      SC Judgment dated 17.09.2019 - D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions & Ors. (403.9 KiB, 1,160 hits)

    Overtime Allowance

    — Government staff not entitled to overtime work allowance: SC

      SC Judgment dated 18.04.2023 - Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc. (238.8 KiB, 2,221 hits)

    Passport

      SC Judgment dated 24.01.2008 - Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. (19.2 KiB, 6,950 hits)

    Pension/Gratuity

      SC Judgement dated 14.08.2013 - State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (247.5 KiB, 1,975 hits)

    — Disability Pension – “A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same.” … “Since the disability has in each case been assessed at more than 20%, their claim to disability pension could not have been repudiated by the appellants.” –

      SC Judgment dated 13.02.2015 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh (222.7 KiB, 13,204 hits)

    — Pension and Gratuity 

    SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law

      SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 - Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another (80.0 KiB, 3,937 hits)

    –— Pension and Gratuity can not be denied without the authority of law

      SC Judgment dated 14.08.2013 - State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr (242.4 KiB, 2,181 hits)

    — Pension relief for all the other employees who have availed SBI-VRS 2000 after having completed 15 years of pensionable service

      SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India & Others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (652.0 KiB, 7,991 hits)

    Promotion

    — Consideration for Promotion – Consideration for promotion a fundamental right.

      SC Judgment dated 09.01.2014 - Major General H.M. Singh, VSM Vs. Union of India and Anr. (235.1 KiB, 19,039 hits)

    — RRs 

      SC Judgment dated 23.08.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri G.R. Rama Krishna & Anr. (170.4 KiB, 2,486 hits)

    Punishment to be commensurate with Articles of Charge

      SC Judgment dated 03.01.2014 - Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal Vs. Union of India & Ors (169.2 KiB, 9,076 hits)

    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 

      SC Judgment dated 23.02.2016 - CBI, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell Vs. Ramesh Gelli and Others (205.1 KiB, 5,110 hits)

     Punishment under the PC Act

    — Section 13 of the PC Act

    “… … the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification and, thus, we are constrained to hold that it would be wholly un-safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as well. In the result, the appeal succeeds.”

      SC Judgment dated 14.09.2015 - P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. The Distt. Inspector of Police and Anr. (Non-Reportable) (224.2 KiB, 4,710 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 14.11.2014 - Anotony Cardoza Vs. State of Kerala (150.1 KiB, 9,487 hits)


    Recovery
    — Courts can’t order recovery after quashing appointment

      SC Judgment dated 01.11.2013 - Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors. (316.0 KiB, 7,037 hits)

    — No recovery of overpayment of salary in higher scale if there was no misrepresentation made by the appellant/employee

      SC Judgment dated 16.12.2008 - Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (163.4 KiB, 8,514 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 19.09.1994 - Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (11.0 KiB, 1,471 hits)

    — Hon’ble SC has summarized 5 situations, “wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law.”

      SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 - State of Punjab and other etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (212.2 KiB, 14,173 hits)

    Reinstatement

    – Salary

      SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - R.S. Misra Vs. Union of India and Others (177.9 KiB, 3,029 hits)

    Reopening of the inquiry qua charge sheet after 30 years or so would not serve any purpose

      SC Judgment dated 29.01.2014 - State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. (186.1 KiB, 6,362 hits)

    Reservation  

    — Benefit of Reservation in the original state

    SC: “… … a  person  who  is  recognised  as  a  member  of Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  in  his  original State, will  be entitled to all  the benefits of reservation under  the Constitution in that  State only  and not  in other  States/Union Territories and not  entitled to the benefits  of  reservation  in  the  migrated  State/Union Territory.”

      SC Judgment dated 30.08.2018 - Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. (802.1 KiB, 3,650 hits)

    — Benefit on Reconversion

      SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - K.P. Manu Vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate (331.3 KiB, 11,823 hits)

    — Caste Certificate/False CasteClaim

      SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 - Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (497.6 KiB, 17,431 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 4,296 hits)

    — DOPT O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22.7.1997 regarding lower qualifying marks, lesser standard of evaluation for SC/ST candidates for reservation in promotion is declared illegal.

      SC Judgment dated 15.07.2014 - Rohtas Bhankhar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another (201.2 KiB, 8,304 hits)

    — Migration to General Seat

      SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 - Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors. (434.8 KiB, 6,350 hits)

    — No Fundamental Right to Reservation
    It has, inter alia, been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. as under:-
    “16.  …  … In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in State services. Even if the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court, no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh Chand Gautam (supra). Therefore, the direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services on the basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and is accordingly set aside. … …”

      SC Judgment dated 07.02.2020 - Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (87.7 KiB, 19,285 hits)

    — Reservation for Jats Quashed

      SC Judgment dated 17.03.2015 - Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India (365.7 KiB, 11,947 hits)

    — Reservation for Marathas and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
    Hon’ble Supreme Court, on May 05, 2021, unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.
    The bench struck down the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 to the extent it held Marathas as a socially and economically backward class as violating the principles of equality. The bench struck down the reservation given to Marathas in job and education. However, the bench clarified that the judgment will not affect the PG Medical Admissions under Maratha quota made till 09.09.2020.
    The bench held that there was no need to revisit the 50% ceiling limit on reservation laid down by the 9-judge bench decision in the Indira Sawhney case.
    In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power of states to identify “Socially and Educationally Backward Classes(SEBCs)”. (Source: Livelaw.in)

      SC Judgment dated 05.05.2021 - Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. (1.5 MiB, 3,858 hits)

    — Relaxation in aptitude test available to SC/ST applicable to the disabled

      SC Order dated 08.07.2020 - Aryan Raj Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. (53.0 KiB, 7,397 hits)

    — Reservation in Promotion

    — Reservation for PwDs (Handicapped) in Promotion
    — The Supreme Court on June 28, 2021 ruled that reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) mandated by Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is applicable to promotions as well (State of Kerala vs. Leesamma Joseph).

      SC Judgment dated 28.06.2021 - The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph (120.0 KiB, 14,321 hits)

    (i) Reservation in Promotions: Supreme Court Holds Cadre As Unit For Collecting Quantifiable Data On Adequacy of Representation; Collection Of Data On Entire Service Meaningless

      SC Judgment dated 28.01.2022 - Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (194.4 KiB, 3,887 hits)

    (ii) No Reservation in Promotions Without Examining Adequacy of Representation in Promotional Posts: Supreme Court
    SC: “… … The Resolution has  no  legal  basis. … While it is open for the State to confer benefit even through  an  executive  order  by  applying  mandatory  requirements  as contemplated under Article 16(4A) but the Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is  merely  issued by referring to the instructions of  the Union of  India without examining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts, as held by this Court.” –

      SC Judgment dated 17.04.2020 - Pravakar Mallick & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors. (88.9 KiB, 14,532 hits)

    (iii) SC: “Finally,   it   may   also   be   noted   that   under   the Government Order dated 13 April 1999, reservation in promotion in favour of SC‘s and ST‘s has been provided until the representation for thesecategories reaches 15 per  cent and  3per  cent, respectively. The State has informed the Court that the above Government Order is applicable to KPTCL and PWD, as well.
    K   Conclusion
    144.  For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in BK Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analyzing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj.  The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by BK Pavitra Iin respect of the Reservation Act2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling  power conferred  by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.” 

      SC Judgment dated 10.05.2019 - B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (914.3 KiB, 11,786 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others (429.0 KiB, 15,091 hits)

      SC Order dated 05.06.2018 - The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Vijay Ghogne & Ors. (30.6 KiB, 5,870 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 11.03.2016 - Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (287.6 KiB, 3,955 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 08.01.2016 - Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors. (286.3 KiB, 6,734 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 09.01.2015 - Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors. (325.0 KiB, 16,863 hits)

    — Reservation in Single Post 

      SC Judgment dated 16.05.2008 - Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Anr. (263.5 KiB, 5,701 hits)

    — Reservation for PWDs and Other Judgements

    Three percent reservation to PWD in all IDENTIFIED POSTS in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts

      SC Judgment dated 30.06.2016 - Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (328.0 KiB, 4,823 hits)

      SC Order dated 12.09.2014 - Union of India and Others Vs. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (259.1 KiB, 8,654 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 08.10.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. (330.9 KiB, 6,671 hits)

      SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,744 hits)

      Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,951 hits)

      Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 5,033 hits)

    — Reservation for Transgender Persons

      SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others (525.2 KiB, 12,879 hits)

    — Scrutiny Committee

      SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 4,296 hits)

    — Others

      SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,744 hits)

      Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,951 hits)

      Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 5,033 hits)

    Res Judicata

      SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 8,601 hits)

    Retirement Age

      SC Judgment dated 24.09.2014 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Atul Shukla etc. (321.4 KiB, 7,339 hits)

    Sanction for Prosecution

      SC Judgment dated 19.08.2019 - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others V. Pramod V. Sawant and Another (375.5 KiB, 1,559 hits)

    Second Marriage

      SC Judgment dated 09.02.2015 - Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (207.4 KiB, 12,469 hits)

    Seniority – Ad Hoc Service

      SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - State of Haryana & Others Vs. Vijay Singh and Others (65.3 KiB, 3,611 hits)

    Sexual Harassment at Workplace

    Compensation to Aggrieved/Complainant * Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC * Uncategorised

    — Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ for Improper Handling of Complaint
    Hon’ble SC has, inter alia, held –
    – The   impugned   order   of   compulsory   retirement   passed   under Rule 135 against the appellant/petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the judgment.
    – The   respondent(s) (Union of India) was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the appellant/petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity ­ as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment.

      SC Judgment dated 24.04.2020 - Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Anr. (600.5 KiB, 1,982 hits)

    — Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC
    SC: “We, thus, are of the view that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. xxx
    26. Before we close, we once more make it clear that with regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority.” [Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC]

      SC Judgment dated 21.08.2019 - Dr. P.S. Malik Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. (125.0 KiB, 1,815 hits)

    — Uncategorised

      SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 - Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others (378.3 KiB, 9,789 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 19.10.2012 - Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs. Union of India and others (265.9 KiB, 1,823 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 20.01.1999 - Apparel Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (46.0 KiB, 2,390 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 13.08.1997 - Visakha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (37.3 KiB, 1,449 hits)

    Termination

      SC Judgment dated 13.01.2015 - Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (196.1 KiB, 12,530 hits)

    Transparency in Services (Minimum fixed tenure, recording of oral directions, etc.)

      SC Judgment dated 31.10.2013 - T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (290.3 KiB, 7,986 hits)

    Unauthorized Absence

    — Unauthorised Absence

      SC Judgment dated 15.02.2012 - Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (163.4 KiB, 3,521 hits)

    — Unauthorised Absence on Medical Grounds 

      SC Judgment dated 07.07.2014 - Chhel Singh Vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali & Ors (134.3 KiB, 4,835 hits)

    Unconditional Apology

      SC Judgment dated 29.07.2013 - Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, UP Gramin Bank) & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh (217.8 KiB, 1,700 hits)

    Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS)

    — Pension relief for all the other employees who have availed SBI-VRS 2000 after having completed 15 years of pensionable service

      SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India & Others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (652.0 KiB, 7,991 hits)

    — Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement 

      SC Judgment dated 22.07.2008 - Director General ESIC & Anr. Vs. Puroshottam Malani (69.4 KiB, 4,760 hits)

    Others/Uncategorized — Judges can recall orders passed in open courts

      Supreme Court' Order dated 06.05.2014 - Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (237.1 KiB, 5,601 hits)

    Uncategorized

      SC Judgement dated 19.08.2011 - State of UP & Ors. Vs. Luxmi Kant Shukla (149.9 KiB, 1,836 hits)

      SC judgement dated 01.03.2011 - State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (51.3 KiB, 2,276 hits)

      SC judgement dated 27.08.2010 - Union of India & anr. vs. Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar (118.7 KiB, 4,404 hits)

      SC judgement dated 18.08.2010 - Union of India & ors. vs. P.C. Ramakrishnayya (152.7 KiB, 3,192 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 13.08.2010 - State of M.P. vs. Harishankr Bhagwan Tripathi (93.7 KiB, 2,553 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 12.08.2010 - M.A.A. Annamalai vs. State of Kerala & another (158.4 KiB, 2,530 hits)

      SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,744 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 19.12.2008 - Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National bank & Ors. (128.2 KiB, 2,854 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 29.10.1971 - Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur (34.2 KiB, 2,526 hits)

    Simultaneous Proceedings
    — SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” [Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence]

      SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah (94.2 KiB, 1,604 hits)

    — SC: “Para 10 … …. This Court was of the opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar. However, it is desirable to stay departmental inquiry till conclusion of the criminal case if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact.”

      SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. (66.3 KiB, 1,661 hits)

    — SC: “13. … … It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court.” – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings]

      SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings] (66.3 KiB, 1,564 hits)


    —     An employee, sacked following disciplinary proceedings, cannot seek reinstatement as a “matter of right” after acquittal from a criminal court on the same charges 

      SC Judgement dated 28.11.2013 - State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sankar Ghosh (184.7 KiB, 8,048 hits)

    — SC: “In the peculiar circumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would also be entitled to his cost which is quantified as Rs.15,000/-.”

      SC Judgment dated 30.03.1999 - Capt. M. Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (50.2 KiB, 3,078 hits)

    Suspension — “… the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.”

      SC Judgment dated 16.02.2015 - Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. (231.4 KiB, 12,579 hits)

    ——————————————————————————————-

    TRANGENDER (TG) COMMUNITY
    Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, directed the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.

      SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others (525.2 KiB, 12,879 hits)

    Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf[dot]in.

    TA Rules for Official Tour/Domestic Travel – Orders/Instructions

    30/08/2023 Comments Off on TA Rules for Official Tour/Domestic Travel – Orders/Instructions

    More: Official Foreign Tour/Deputation & Foreign Travel – Orders/Instructions  * Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE  Circulars / Orders * LTC Rules * Deputation/Foreign service/Tenure/Foreign Assignment 

    UNMISSABLE ORDERS

    RECENT ORDERS

    2022

    2020-2021

     I. TA Rules for Official Tour/Domestic Travel – Orders/Instructions
    II. TA Rules for Official Tour/Domestic Travel – Orders/Instructions   (Subject-Wise)

    I. TA Rules for Official Tour / Domestic Travel – Orders/Instructions 

    2022

      MoF O.M. dated 30.08.2023 - Admissibility to travel by Vande Bharat and Humsafar Express Trains on Official Tour (50.8 KiB, 6,019 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 12.09.2022 - Admissibility to travel by Tejas Trains on Official Tour (162.4 KiB, 7,240 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 16.06.2022 - Modification of instructions regarding Air Tickets on Government account (152.4 KiB, 14,673 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 16.06.2022 - TA on transfer to,from North-Eastern Region, UTs of A&N, Lakshdweep Islands and Ladakh in respect of Central Govt. employees (63.3 KiB, 6,933 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 16.02.2022 - Modification of instructions regarding Air Travel on Government account (35.6 KiB, 10,886 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 24.01.2022 - Concession to person re-employed in Central Govt. Service - Payment of Travelling Allowance (959.8 KiB, 7,399 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 06.01.2022 - Admissibility of Composite Transfer Grant (CTG) on Retirement (397.0 KiB, 3,334 hits)

    2020-2021

      MoF O.M. dated 31.12.2021 - Modification of instructions regarding Booking of Air Tickets on Government account (545.7 KiB, 6,907 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 27.10.2021 - Air Travel on official account - Stoppage of credit facility by Air India (48.4 KiB, 6,078 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 15.06.2021 - Time-limit for submission of claims for Travelling Allowance (TA) on Retirement - regarding (up to 180 days after the journey) (403.4 KiB, 2,138 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 22.12.2020-T.A. Rules - production of receipts/vouchers for reimbursement of traveling charges for travel within the city under DA on tour - reg. (116.4 KiB, 6,296 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 23.06.2020 - Travelling Allowance Rules-Submission of Boarding Pass along with TA Bill (self-declaration certificate in lieu of boarding pass) (52.5 KiB, 7,058 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 08.05.2020 - Participation by Central Govt. Servants in sports events and tournaments of National/International importance-Clarification reg. (53.5 KiB, 6,774 hits)

    Prior to 2020

      MoF O.M. dated 31.12.2018 - Air travel on official tour where the cost of air passage is not borne by the Government of India - clarification reg. (833.7 KiB, 20,818 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 29.06.2018 - Reimbursement of Taxes/GST on the prescribed entitlement of Hotel accommodation/Guest House to Central Govt. employees - reg. (364.7 KiB, 11,445 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 13.03.2018 - Time-limit for submission of claims of Travelling Allowance - regarding (1,006.8 KiB, 13,475 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 27.02.2018 - Guidelines on Air Travel on Official Tours - Purchase of air ticket from authorized agent. (433.9 KiB, 15,342 hits)

      DoE O.M. dated 01.02.2018 - Travelling Allowance Rules - Implementation of the Recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission (464.6 KiB, 16,191 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 14.09.2017 - TA/DA entitlements of Non-Officials of Committees/Boards/Panels etc. (586.8 KiB, 6,950 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 04.09.2017 - Travelling Allowance Rules - Implementation of 7th CPC Recommendations (254.8 KiB, 7,376 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 19.07.2017 - Guidelines on Air Travel on Official Tours - Purchase of air ticket from authorized agent (362.6 KiB, 3,279 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 13.07.2017-Travelling Allowance Rules - Implementation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission (2.2 MiB, 7,117 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 21.12.2016-Applicability of provision below SR-147 to the family of deceased Govt. servant, in special circumstances-clarification regarding (309.2 KiB, 4,711 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 26.07.2016-Delegation of Powers to FAs of administrative Ministry/Deptt. to accord exemption for air travel in airlines other than Air India in cases of autonomous bodies (47.1 KiB, 7,714 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 21.01.2016-Admissibility of Travelling Allowance (TA) and other expenditure incurred while on training by Govt. servants on probation (1.1 MiB, 8,061 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 22.04.2015 - Travel by Premium Trains on Official Duty/Tour/Training/Transfer, etc.-Clarification reg. (12.3 KiB, 2,885 hits)

      O.M. dated 17.02.2015 - Travelling Allowance in respect of Attendant,Escort for accompanying a Govt. servant with disabilities on travel during tour, training, etc. (1.6 MiB, 4,413 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 08.10.2014 - T.A. Rules - Submission of Boarding Pass along with TA bills - regarding (269.5 KiB, 3,654 hits)

      O.M. dated 07.10.2014 - Non-submission of Boarding Pass for settlement of T.A. Claims (37.4 KiB, 4,806 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 05.09.2014 - Facilitation Fee levied by authorised travel agents on air tickets booked on Govt. account - Withrawal regarding (198.9 KiB, 1,784 hits)

      O.M. dated 11.10.2013 - Expenditure Management - Economy Measures and Rationalization of Expenditure - clarification regarding (612.2 KiB, 2,521 hits)

      O.M. dated 10.10.2013 - Facilitation Fee to be levied by authorised travel agents on air tickets booked on Government account - Regarding (12.0 KiB, 1,402 hits)

      O.M. dated 18.09.2013 - Expenditure Management - Economic Measures and Realization of Expenditure (26.4 KiB, 1,901 hits)

      O.M. dated 09.07.2013 - Guidelines on Air Travel on Official Tours or Leave Travel Concession (LTC) - regarding (541.3 KiB, 4,576 hits)

      O.M. dated 10.2.2012 - Concession to persons re-employed in Govt. Service - Payment of Travelling Allowance (976.8 KiB, 1,731 hits)

      O.M. dated 24.01.2011 - Travelling Allowance Rules - Implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth CPC (689.8 KiB, 1,635 hits)

      O.M. dated 16.09.2010 - Guidelines on Air Travel on Tours or LTC (34.7 KiB, 2,508 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 29.07.2010 - Air travel on official account - both domestic and international (161.8 KiB, 1,377 hits)

      O.M. dated 11.06.2010 - TA Rules - Implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC (50.9 KiB, 1,887 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 08.06.2010 - Travelling Allowance Rules - Implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth CPC (53.2 KiB, 2,060 hits)

      O.M. dated 15.12.2009 - Air travel on official account - both domestic and international (614.4 KiB, 2,409 hits)

      O.M. dated 1.10.2009 - Air Travel on official account - both domestic and international (46.6 KiB, 1,474 hits)

      O.M. dated 13.07.2009 - Air Travel on official account-both domestic and international (77.2 KiB, 1,533 hits)

      O.M. dated 05.03.2009 - Rate of Transport Allowance in the case of All India or Group A Officers appointed at the Centre on deputation basis as Dirs. or equi. (56.0 KiB, 1,235 hits)

      O.M. dated 5.3.2009 - Rate of TA-AIS and Group A Services Officers on deputation as Director or equi. (56.0 KiB, 989 hits)

      O.M. dated 18.2.2009 - TA Rules - Corrigendum (56.5 KiB, 1,398 hits)

      O.M. dated 22.1.2009 - TA Rules-6th Pay Commission (38.9 KiB, 1,809 hits)

      O.M. dated 19.11.2008 - T.A. Rules (89.0 KiB, 1,471 hits)

      O.M. dated 14.10.2008 - Admissibility for reimbursement for travel within the city (71.9 KiB, 1,726 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 23.9.2008 - Revision of Conveyance Allowance (252.1 KiB, 1,555 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 23.9.2008 - TA Rules (629.5 KiB, 2,043 hits)

      O.M. dated 18.7.2007 - Reimbursement of Service Tax and Education Cess on air travel while on tour, transfer or LTC (50.2 KiB, 1,154 hits)

      O.M. dated 25.10.2006 - Reimbursement of charges for booking through internet for railway journeys undertaken for official purpose or LTC (76.7 KiB, 1,405 hits)

      O.M. dated 01.08.2006 - Air travel by Govt. servants within India (62.3 KiB, 1,314 hits)

      O.M. dated 24.3.2006 - Air travel by Government servants within india (55.1 KiB, 6,253 hits)

      O.M. dated 06.02.2006 - Additional fare by the entitled class to Govt. servant on transfer (121.4 KiB, 1,665 hits)

    II. TA Rules for Official Tour / Domestic Travel – Orders/Instructions (Subject-Wise)  

    Air Travel by Airline other than Air India * Authorized Agent for purchasing/booking air ticket Economy Instructions * Boarding Pass * Booking of Air Ticket * Cost of Travel not borne by Government * Credit Facility by Air India * Delegation of Powers * Entitlement * Facilitation Fee to Authorized Travel Agents * Hotel Accommodation/Guest House * Non Officials of Committees/Boards, etc. * Participation in Sports Events * Persons re-employed in Govt. Service * SR 147 * TA Claims * TA Claim by Family of Deceased Employee *  TA for Probationers on Training * TA in respect of Attendant/Escort *  Travel by Vande Bharat/Humsafar/Tejas/Premium Trains * Traveling Allowance * Travel Within City While On Tour

    Air Travel by Airline other than Air India

      MOF O.M. dated 26.07.2016-Delegation of Powers to FAs of administrative Ministry/Deptt. to accord exemption for air travel in airlines other than Air India in cases of autonomous bodies (47.1 KiB, 7,714 hits)

    Authorized Agent for purchasing/booking air ticket

      MoF O.M. dated 16.02.2022 - Modification of instructions regarding Air Travel on Government account (35.6 KiB, 10,886 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 19.07.2017 - Guidelines on Air Travel on Official Tours - Purchase of air ticket from authorized agent (362.6 KiB, 3,279 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 05.09.2014 - Facilitation Fee levied by authorised travel agents on air tickets booked on Govt. account - Withrawal regarding (198.9 KiB, 1,784 hits)

      O.M. dated 10.10.2013 - Facilitation Fee to be levied by authorised travel agents on air tickets booked on Government account - Regarding (12.0 KiB, 1,402 hits)

      O.M. dated 09.07.2013 - Guidelines on Air Travel on Official Tours or Leave Travel Concession (LTC) - regarding (541.3 KiB, 4,576 hits)

    Boarding Pass

      MOF O.M. dated 23.06.2020 - Travelling Allowance Rules-Submission of Boarding Pass along with TA Bill (self-declaration certificate in lieu of boarding pass) (52.5 KiB, 7,058 hits)

    Booking of Air Ticket

    Booking of Air Ticket * Booking of Air Ticket on Govt. Account

    — Booking of Air Ticket 

      MoF O.M. dated 16.02.2022 - Modification of instructions regarding Air Travel on Government account (35.6 KiB, 10,886 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 31.12.2021 - Modification of instructions regarding Booking of Air Tickets on Government account (545.7 KiB, 6,907 hits)

    — Booking of Air Ticket on Govt. Account 

      MoF O.M. dated 16.06.2022 - Modification of instructions regarding Air Tickets on Government account (152.4 KiB, 14,673 hits)

    Cost of Travel not borne by Government

      MoF O.M. dated 31.12.2018 - Air travel on official tour where the cost of air passage is not borne by the Government of India - clarification reg. (833.7 KiB, 20,818 hits)

    Credit Facility by Air India

      MOF O.M. dated 27.10.2021 - Air Travel on official account - Stoppage of credit facility by Air India (48.4 KiB, 6,078 hits)

    Delegation of Powers

      MOF O.M. dated 26.07.2016-Delegation of Powers to FAs of administrative Ministry/Deptt. to accord exemption for air travel in airlines other than Air India in cases of autonomous bodies (47.1 KiB, 7,714 hits)

    Economy Instructions

      O.M. dated 11.10.2013 - Expenditure Management - Economy Measures and Rationalization of Expenditure - clarification regarding (612.2 KiB, 2,521 hits)

      O.M. dated 18.09.2013 - Expenditure Management - Economic Measures and Realization of Expenditure (26.4 KiB, 1,901 hits)

     Entitlement 

      MoF O.M. dated 04.09.2017 - Travelling Allowance Rules - Implementation of 7th CPC Recommendations (254.8 KiB, 7,376 hits)

     Facilitation Fee to Authorised Travel Agents

      MOF O.M. dated 05.09.2014 - Facilitation Fee levied by authorised travel agents on air tickets booked on Govt. account - Withrawal regarding (198.9 KiB, 1,784 hits)

    Hotel Accommodation/Guest House

      MoF O.M. dated 29.06.2018 - Reimbursement of Taxes/GST on the prescribed entitlement of Hotel accommodation/Guest House to Central Govt. employees - reg. (364.7 KiB, 11,445 hits)

    Non-Officials of Committees/Boards, etc.

      MoF O.M. dated 14.09.2017 - TA/DA entitlements of Non-Officials of Committees/Boards/Panels etc. (586.8 KiB, 6,950 hits)

    Participation in Sports Events

      DoPT O.M. dated 08.05.2020 - Participation by Central Govt. Servants in sports events and tournaments of National/International importance-Clarification reg. (53.5 KiB, 6,774 hits)

    Persons re-employed in Govt. Service

      MoF O.M. dated 24.01.2022 - Concession to person re-employed in Central Govt. Service - Payment of Travelling Allowance (959.8 KiB, 7,399 hits)

      O.M. dated 10.2.2012 - Concession to persons re-employed in Govt. Service - Payment of Travelling Allowance (976.8 KiB, 1,731 hits)

    SR 147

      MoF O.M. dated 21.12.2016-Applicability of provision below SR-147 to the family of deceased Govt. servant, in special circumstances-clarification regarding (309.2 KiB, 4,711 hits)

    TA Claims

    TA Claims * TA Claim by Family of Deceased Employee * TA in respect of Attendant/Escort * Time Limit for TA Claim/TA Claim on Retirement * Transfer Grant/Composite Transfer Grant (CTG) on Retirement

    — TA Claims

      MOF O.M. dated 23.06.2020 - Travelling Allowance Rules-Submission of Boarding Pass along with TA Bill (self-declaration certificate in lieu of boarding pass) (52.5 KiB, 7,058 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 08.10.2014 - T.A. Rules - Submission of Boarding Pass along with TA bills - regarding (269.5 KiB, 3,654 hits)

      O.M. dated 07.10.2014 - Non-submission of Boarding Pass for settlement of T.A. Claims (37.4 KiB, 4,806 hits)

    — TA Claim by Family of Deceased Employee

      MoF O.M. dated 21.12.2016-Applicability of provision below SR-147 to the family of deceased Govt. servant, in special circumstances-clarification regarding (309.2 KiB, 4,711 hits)

    — TA in respect of Attendant/Escort

      O.M. dated 17.02.2015 - Travelling Allowance in respect of Attendant,Escort for accompanying a Govt. servant with disabilities on travel during tour, training, etc. (1.6 MiB, 4,413 hits)

    — Time Limit for TA Claim/TA Claim on Retirement

      MOF O.M. dated 15.06.2021 - Time-limit for submission of claims for Travelling Allowance (TA) on Retirement - regarding (up to 180 days after the journey) (403.4 KiB, 2,138 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 13.03.2018 - Time-limit for submission of claims of Travelling Allowance - regarding (1,006.8 KiB, 13,475 hits)

    — Transfer Grant/Composite Transfer Grant (CTG) on Retirement

      MoF O.M. dated 16.06.2022 - TA on transfer to,from North-Eastern Region, UTs of A&N, Lakshdweep Islands and Ladakh in respect of Central Govt. employees (63.3 KiB, 6,933 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 06.01.2022 - Admissibility of Composite Transfer Grant (CTG) on Retirement (397.0 KiB, 3,334 hits)

    Travel by Vande Bharat/Humsafar/Tejas/Premium Trains

      MoF O.M. dated 30.08.2023 - Admissibility to travel by Vande Bharat and Humsafar Express Trains on Official Tour (50.8 KiB, 6,019 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 12.09.2022 - Admissibility to travel by Tejas Trains on Official Tour (162.4 KiB, 7,240 hits)

      MOF O.M. dated 22.04.2015 - Travel by Premium Trains on Official Duty/Tour/Training/Transfer, etc.-Clarification reg. (12.3 KiB, 2,885 hits)

    Travelling Allowance

      DoE O.M. dated 01.02.2018 - Travelling Allowance Rules - Implementation of the Recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission (464.6 KiB, 16,191 hits)

      MoF O.M. dated 13.07.2017-Travelling Allowance Rules - Implementation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission (2.2 MiB, 7,117 hits)

     Travel Within City While On Tour

      MOF O.M. dated 22.12.2020-T.A. Rules - production of receipts/vouchers for reimbursement of traveling charges for travel within the city under DA on tour - reg. (116.4 KiB, 6,296 hits)

    Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf[dot]in.

    Lokpal of India

    05/08/2023 Comments Off on Lokpal of India

    RELATED PAGES:
    CVC Circulars.
    Acts and Rules.
    Vigilance Related GOI/CVC  Orders/Circulars.
    Latest Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)/DPPW Orders/Circulars.
    Latest Ministry of Finance Orders/Circulars.
    Vigilance Clearance .
     RTI Rules/Orders.
    Selected Decisions of Central Information Commission (CIC).

    UNMISSABLE

    RECENT NOTIFICATIONS/ORDERS

    LOKPAL OF INDIA – RULES/ORDERS

      DoPT Order dated 02.08.2023 - Constitution of a Search Committee for the panel for consideration of the positions of Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal (50.2 KiB, 1,217 hits)

    Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published on this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

    Reservation/Relaxations/Concessions for Ex-Servicemen

    01/05/2023 0

    More:  Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Service (ECHS) – Circulars/Orders/Forms * Reservation for SCs/STs/OBCs and SCs/STs * Reservation for OBCs/PWDs (Handicapped) *Reservation/Concessions for Women * Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE Orders/Circulars * Vigilance Related GOI/CVC  Orders/Circulars * Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates 

    UNMISSABLE ORDERS

    RECENT ORDERS/CIRCULARS

    * DPE O.M. dated 25.02.2015 – Applicability of instructions regarding reservation to SC/ST/OBC, Disability & Ex-servicemen as issued by Govt. Ministries/Departments to CPSEs
    * Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Service (ECHS) – Circulars/Orders/Forms

    I. Reservation/Concessions for Ex-Servicemen – Orders/Instructions
    II. Reservation/Concessions for Ex-Servicemen – Orders/Instructions (Subject-Wise)

    I. Reservation/Relaxations/Concessions for Ex-Servicemen – Orders/Instructions

      DoPT O.M. dated 08.12.2022-Liaison Officer for SC/ST/OBC/PwD/EWS & ESM and Reservation Cell for enforcement of reservation (101.9 KiB, 11,543 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 21.11.2022 - Reiteration of instructions relating to reservation in temporary appointments - regarding (64.3 KiB, 9,506 hits)

      Compendium of Instructions on Reservation in Appointments/Services in the Central Government (updated on 14.10.2022) (as on DoPT website) (1.3 MiB, 18,624 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 31.12.2021 - Nomination of Liaison Officer for implementation of orders of reservation relating to Ex-Servicemen in the posts and services of the Central Government - reg. (752.0 KiB, 6,447 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 03.11.2021 - Pay fixation of Ex-servicemen re-employed in PSBs/PSIC/,PFIs - Clarifications of DoPT and MOD (3.9 MiB, 4,835 hits)

      DoPT Notification dated 13.02.2020-Amendment to the Ex-servicemen Re-employment Rules (Status of Ex-servicemen to Short Service Commissioned Officers) (897.9 KiB, 11,295 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 26.02.2019 - Special recruitment drive by CPSEs for the recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (ESM) (218.1 KiB, 1,578 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 14.02.2019-Appointment of Security Personnel in Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) from Ex-servicemen Security Agencies sponsored by the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR) (114.0 KiB, 1,628 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 16.05.2018-Action Taken in respect of SC Judgment dated 30.8.2017 reg. repsns. of All Kerala Ex-Servicemen Security Staff Assn. (BSNL) & National Ex-servicemen Coord. Committee (364.7 KiB, 1,846 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 23.11.2017-Relaxation of terms and conditions of selection while selecting disabled Ex-servicemen and dependents of Armed Forces Personnel killed in action for recruitment in CPSEs (3.3 MiB, 4,082 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 25.02.2015 - Applicability of instructions regarding reservation to SC/ST/OBC, Disability & Ex-servicemen as issued by Govt. Ministries/Departments to CPSEs (105.4 KiB, 26,696 hits)

      O.M. dated 14.08.2014 - Benefit of reservation to Ex-servicemen who apply for various examinations/vacancies before joining civil posts/services (80.2 KiB, 6,331 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 03.07.2014 - Monitoring of implementation of reservation policy for ESM in Ministries, Banks, PSUs & CPMFs-designation of DGR as the Nodal Agency - reg. (1.8 MiB, 256 hits)

      DESW Letter dated 04.06.2014 - Reservation policy for ESM in Ministries, Banks, PSUs & CPMFs-designation of DGR as the Nodal Agency-reg. (encl. to DFS letter dt. 3.7.14) (1.5 MiB, 276 hits)

      O.M. dated 25.02.2014 - Issue of Compendium of instructions on reservation for ex-servicemen (1.9 MiB, 1,446 hits)

      O.M. dated 08.04.2013 - Recruitment on all India basis by open competition and otherwise than by open competition - Clarification regarding (99.0 KiB, 1,503 hits)

      Notification dated 04.10.2012 - Amendment to Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 (117.5 KiB, 2,011 hits)

      Brochure on Reservations, Concessions & Relaxations for Ex-Servicemen (as DOP&T website) (1.1 MiB, 4,484 hits)

      Notification dated 12.02.1986 - Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) (Amendment) Rules, 1986 (238.6 KiB, 1,382 hits)

      The Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 (As on DoPT website) (364.3 KiB, 500 hits)

    II. Reservation/Relaxations/Concessions for Ex-Servicemen – Orders/Instructions (Subject-Wise)

    Action Taken Report * Applicability of Govt. Orders to CPSEs * Appointment of Security Personnel in CPSEs * Compendium of Instructions * Liaison Officer * Relaxation for Disabled Ex-Servicemen, etc. in  selection in CPSEs * Recruitment on All India Basis * Reservation Orders for Ex-Servicemen * Rules for Re-employment of Ex-Servicemen in Civil Services * Special Recruitment Drive (SRD)

    Action Taken Report

      DPE O.M. dated 16.05.2018-Action Taken in respect of SC Judgment dated 30.8.2017 reg. repsns. of All Kerala Ex-Servicemen Security Staff Assn. (BSNL) & National Ex-servicemen Coord. Committee (364.7 KiB, 1,846 hits)

    Applicability of Govt. Orders to CPSEs

      DPE O.M. dated 25.02.2015 - Applicability of instructions regarding reservation to SC/ST/OBC, Disability & Ex-servicemen as issued by Govt. Ministries/Departments to CPSEs (105.4 KiB, 26,696 hits)

    Appointment of Security Personnel in CPSEs

      DPE O.M. dated 14.02.2019-Appointment of Security Personnel in Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) from Ex-servicemen Security Agencies sponsored by the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR) (114.0 KiB, 1,628 hits)

    Compendium of Instructions

      Compendium of Instructions on Reservation in Appointments/Services in the Central Government (updated on 14.10.2022) (as on DoPT website) (1.3 MiB, 18,624 hits)

      O.M. dated 25.02.2014 - Issue of Compendium of instructions on reservation for ex-servicemen (1.9 MiB, 1,446 hits)

    Liaison Officer

      DoPT O.M. dated 08.12.2022-Liaison Officer for SC/ST/OBC/PwD/EWS & ESM and Reservation Cell for enforcement of reservation (101.9 KiB, 11,543 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 31.12.2021 - Nomination of Liaison Officer for implementation of orders of reservation relating to Ex-Servicemen in the posts and services of the Central Government - reg. (752.0 KiB, 6,447 hits)

    Monitoring of Reservation for ESM

      DFS Letter dated 03.07.2014 - Monitoring of implementation of reservation policy for ESM in Ministries, Banks, PSUs & CPMFs-designation of DGR as the Nodal Agency - reg. (1.8 MiB, 256 hits)

      DESW Letter dated 04.06.2014 - Reservation policy for ESM in Ministries, Banks, PSUs & CPMFs-designation of DGR as the Nodal Agency-reg. (encl. to DFS letter dt. 3.7.14) (1.5 MiB, 276 hits)

    Relaxation for Disabled Ex-Servicemen, etc. in  selection in CPSEs 

      DPE O.M. dated 23.11.2017-Relaxation of terms and conditions of selection while selecting disabled Ex-servicemen and dependents of Armed Forces Personnel killed in action for recruitment in CPSEs (3.3 MiB, 4,082 hits)

    Recruitment on All India Basis

      O.M. dated 08.04.2013 - Recruitment on all India basis by open competition and otherwise than by open competition - Clarification regarding (99.0 KiB, 1,503 hits)

    Reservation/Relaxations/Concessions Orders for Ex-Servicemen

      O.M. dated 14.08.2014 - Benefit of reservation to Ex-servicemen who apply for various examinations/vacancies before joining civil posts/services (80.2 KiB, 6,331 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 03.07.2014 - Monitoring of implementation of reservation policy for ESM in Ministries, Banks, PSUs & CPMFs-designation of DGR as the Nodal Agency - reg. (1.8 MiB, 256 hits)

      DESW Letter dated 04.06.2014 - Reservation policy for ESM in Ministries, Banks, PSUs & CPMFs-designation of DGR as the Nodal Agency-reg. (encl. to DFS letter dt. 3.7.14) (1.5 MiB, 276 hits)

      O.M. dated 25.02.2014 - Issue of Compendium of instructions on reservation for ex-servicemen (1.9 MiB, 1,446 hits)

      Brochure on Reservations, Concessions & Relaxations for Ex-Servicemen (as DOP&T website) (1.1 MiB, 4,484 hits)

    Rules for Re-employment of Ex-Servicemen in Civil Services

      DFS Letter dated 03.11.2021 - Pay fixation of Ex-servicemen re-employed in PSBs/PSIC/,PFIs - Clarifications of DoPT and MOD (3.9 MiB, 4,835 hits)

      DoPT Notification dated 13.02.2020-Amendment to the Ex-servicemen Re-employment Rules (Status of Ex-servicemen to Short Service Commissioned Officers) (897.9 KiB, 11,295 hits)

      Notification dated 04.10.2012 - Amendment to Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 (117.5 KiB, 2,011 hits)

      Notification dated 12.02.1986 - Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) (Amendment) Rules, 1986 (238.6 KiB, 1,382 hits)

      The Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 (As on DoPT website) (364.3 KiB, 500 hits)

    Special Recruitment Drive (SRD)

      DPE O.M. dated 26.02.2019 - Special recruitment drive by CPSEs for the recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (ESM) (218.1 KiB, 1,578 hits)

    Temporary Appointment

      DoPT O.M. dated 21.11.2022 - Reiteration of instructions relating to reservation in temporary appointments - regarding (64.3 KiB, 9,506 hits)

    Note:- It may be noted that the information on this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. However, in case there is any complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf[dot]in.

    Banks – Service Rules/Orders/Circulars

    01/05/2023 Comments Off on Banks – Service Rules/Orders/Circulars

    More: * Latest DOPT/CVC/RTI/MOF/CGHS/DPE Orders/Circulars; News  *  RTI – Circulars/Notifications/Instructions/Guides/Guidelines * Selected Decisions of Central Information Commission (CIC) * Decisions of Central Information Commission (CIC) – Section-Wise  *   RTI – Court Judgements * Vigilance Clearance * Reservation for SCs/STs/OBCs – Orders/Circulars * Vigilance-Related Orders/Circulars 

    Go to NEWS.

    PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS 
    Service Rules/Orders/Circulars

    RECENT ORDERS/CIRCULARS

     I.  Service Rules/Orders/Instructions
    II.  Service Rules/Orders/Instructions – Subject-Wise – New
    III. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules

    I. Service Rules/Orders/Circulars

      DFS Letter dated 03.11.2021 - Pay fixation of Ex-servicemen re-employed in PSBs/PSIC/,PFIs - Clarifications of DoPT and MOD (3.9 MiB, 4,835 hits)

      DoPT Letter dated 08.06.2018-Reservation for candidates from OBCs-Revision of Income Criteria & determining equivalence of posts in CPSEs, PSBs, FIs, etc. with posts in Govt. for Creamy Layer criteria (594.8 KiB, 3,826 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 11.05.2020–Complaints against CMDs,/Chief Executives/Functional Dirs./Non-Official Dirs., etc. of CPSEs/Public Sec. Banks (PSBs)/FIs & Insurance Cos. (Amendment to OM dated 11.12.17) (101.8 KiB, 13,948 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 27.06.2019 - Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) in Public Sector Banks (454.2 KiB, 4,367 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 17.01.2019 - Appointment to the post of Chief Vigilance Officers (CVOs) in the Public Sector Banks, Financial Institutions, Insurance Companies (2.1 MiB, 5,282 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 11.12.2017-Complaints against CMDs/Chief Executives/Functional Directors/Non official Directors (NoDs) etc. of CPSEs, PSBs, FIs and PSICs (2.9 MiB, 15,257 hits)

      DFS O.M. dated 06.12.2017-(i) Establishing equivalence of posts in PSUs, Banks,etc. with posts in Govt. for establishing Creamy Layer Criteria (ii) Revision of income criteria for Creamy Layer forOBC (63.0 KiB, 790 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 06.10.2017 - Establishing equivalence of posts in Central PSUs, Banks, Insurance Institutions with Posts in Govt. for establishing Creamy Layer criteria (390.1 KiB, 3,796 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 21.03.2017 - Next Wage revision in Public Sector Banks (358.1 KiB, 1,195 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 21.12.2016 - Next Wage revision in Public Sector Banks (387.5 KiB, 1,065 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 21.10.2016 - Next Wage revision in Public Sector Banks (346.1 KiB, 896 hits)

      DFS Letter dated 20.10.2016-Review Petition (Civil) 2131 of 2015 -UoF and Ors. vs. CBI SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and Others in the Hon'ble SC of India Judgement dated 08.01.2016 (178.3 KiB, 2,120 hits)

      DoPT communication dated 22.01.2016 - Appointment of General Managers as Executive Directors in Public Sector Banks (66.9 KiB, 4,908 hits)

      DFS letter dated 02.03.2015 - Bringing outside influence for transfer/postings/disciplinary matters/appointments, etc. (365.7 KiB, 2,263 hits)

      DFS O.M. dated 13.01.2015 - Assurance of freedom of non-interference in PSBs on commercial decisions, transfers and postings, etc. (552.4 KiB, 2,249 hits)

      DFS O.M. dated 05.01.2015 - Assurance of freedom of non-interference in PSBs on commercial decisions, transfers and postings, etc. (505.8 KiB, 1,873 hits)

      DFS letter dated 23.09.2014 - Benefit of reservation to Ex-servicemen who apply for various exams./vacancies before joining civil posts/service on civil side (12.4 KiB, 1,086 hits)

      DFS letter dated 08.08.2014 - Transfer of female employees in Public Sector Banks - minimizing their hardship (396.0 KiB, 8,591 hits)

      DFS D.O. letter dated 07.08.2014 - Compassionate appointment in Public Sector banks on the lines of Central Government (453.6 KiB, 1,784 hits)

      Circular dated 01.02.2011 - Dearness Relief payable for the period Feb. to July 2011 to surviving 1.1.1986 retirees of banks who are in receipt of ex-gratia (610.4 KiB, 1,099 hits)

      Circular dated 31.01.2011 - DA for Workmen and Officer Employees in banks for months of Feb. to April 2011 (159.5 KiB, 825 hits)

      DA for Workmen and Officer Employees in Banks (74.0 KiB, 1,054 hits)

      IBA Circular dated 31.7.2010 - DA for Workmen and Officer employees in banks for the months of Aug., Sept., & Oct., 2010 under IX BPS Joint Note dt. 27.4.10 (151.4 KiB, 924 hits)

      IBA Circular dated 31.7.2010 - Dearness relief payable for the period August, 10 to January, 11 to surviving pre-1.1.86 retirees of banks who are in receipt of ex gratia (479.2 KiB, 767 hits)

      IBA' Notice - Retired Employees - Another option for joining the Pension Scheme (As on IBA's website-31.8.10) (448.0 KiB, 771 hits)

      Highlights of Settlements dated 27.4.2010 signed with workmen Unions & Joint Note dated 27.4.2010 signed with Officers' Association on wage and salary revision and one more option of pension (45.0 KiB, 1,168 hits)

      IBA Circular dated 30.1.2010 - DA for Workmen and Officer Employees in banks for the months of Feb., March & April, 10 (516.9 KiB, 970 hits)

      IBA Circular dated 30.1.2010 - DA payable to Pensioners for the period Feb. to July, 2010 (942.0 KiB, 1,671 hits)

    II. Orders/Notifications/Instructions – Subject-Wise

    APARs * Appointments in PSBs * Compassionate Appointment * Complaints * Donation * Equivalence of Posts for Creamy Layer/Income Criteria * Posting/Transfer in PSBs * Reservation

    APARs

      DFS Letter dated 27.06.2019 - Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) in Public Sector Banks (454.2 KiB, 4,367 hits)

    Appointments in PSBs

      DoPT communication dated 22.01.2016 - Appointment of General Managers as Executive Directors in Public Sector Banks (66.9 KiB, 4,908 hits)

    Bringing Outside Influence

      DFS letter dated 02.03.2015 - Bringing outside influence for transfer/postings/disciplinary matters/appointments, etc. (365.7 KiB, 2,263 hits)

    Compassionate Appointment

      DFS D.O. letter dated 07.08.2014 - Compassionate appointment in Public Sector banks on the lines of Central Government (453.6 KiB, 1,784 hits)

    Complaints

      DPE O.M. dated 11.05.2020–Complaints against CMDs,/Chief Executives/Functional Dirs./Non-Official Dirs., etc. of CPSEs/Public Sec. Banks (PSBs)/FIs & Insurance Cos. (Amendment to OM dated 11.12.17) (101.8 KiB, 13,948 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 11.12.2017-Complaints against CMDs/Chief Executives/Functional Directors/Non official Directors (NoDs) etc. of CPSEs, PSBs, FIs and PSICs (2.9 MiB, 15,257 hits)

    Donation

      Guidelines to curb practice of Assns. formed,patronized by CPSE,PSB officials, spouses, etc. obtaining donations from those having commercial relations,official dealings (As on CVC website-3.8.16) (7.1 KiB, 2,567 hits)

    Equivalence of Posts for Creamy Layer/Income Criteria

      DoPT Letter dated 08.06.2018-Reservation for candidates from OBCs-Revision of Income Criteria & determining equivalence of posts in CPSEs, PSBs, FIs, etc. with posts in Govt. for Creamy Layer criteria (594.8 KiB, 3,826 hits)

      DFS O.M. dated 06.12.2017-(i) Establishing equivalence of posts in PSUs, Banks,etc. with posts in Govt. for establishing Creamy Layer Criteria (ii) Revision of income criteria for Creamy Layer forOBC (63.0 KiB, 790 hits)

    Pay Fixation of Re-employed Ex-servicemen

      DFS Letter dated 03.11.2021 - Pay fixation of Ex-servicemen re-employed in PSBs/PSIC/,PFIs - Clarifications of DoPT and MOD (3.9 MiB, 4,835 hits)

    Posting/Transfer in PSBs

      DFS letter dated 02.03.2015 - Bringing outside influence for transfer/postings/disciplinary matters/appointments, etc. (365.7 KiB, 2,263 hits)

      DFS O.M. dated 13.01.2015 - Assurance of freedom of non-interference in PSBs on commercial decisions, transfers and postings, etc. (552.4 KiB, 2,249 hits)

      DFS O.M. dated 05.01.2015 - Assurance of freedom of non-interference in PSBs on commercial decisions, transfers and postings, etc. (505.8 KiB, 1,873 hits)

      DFS letter dated 08.08.2014 - Transfer of female employees in Public Sector Banks - minimizing their hardship (396.0 KiB, 8,591 hits)

    Reservation

    — Ex-Servicemen

      DFS letter dated 23.09.2014 - Benefit of reservation to Ex-servicemen who apply for various exams./vacancies before joining civil posts/service on civil side (12.4 KiB, 1,086 hits)

      DPE O.M. dated 03.09.2014 - Benefit of reservation to Ex-servicemen who apply for various exams./vacancies before joining civil posts/services on civil side (13.0 KiB, 1,217 hits)

      O.M. dated 14.08.2014 - Benefit of reservation to Ex-servicemen who apply for various examinations/vacancies before joining civil posts/services (80.2 KiB, 6,331 hits)

    —Representation of SCs and STs

      DFS Letter dated 20.10.2016-Review Petition (Civil) 2131 of 2015 -UoF and Ors. vs. CBI SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and Others in the Hon'ble SC of India Judgement dated 08.01.2016 (178.3 KiB, 2,120 hits)

    III. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules

      Bank of Baroda Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (99.8 KiB, 2,197 hits)

      Bank of Baroda Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (119.4 KiB, 2,986 hits)

      Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (2.6 MiB, 946 hits)

      Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (3.8 MiB, 874 hits)

      Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (461.3 KiB, 985 hits)

      Union Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (128.9 KiB, 992 hits)

    Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

    Women in Services – Govt. Orders/Instructions

    21/03/2023 Comments Off on Women in Services – Govt. Orders/Instructions

    More: Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE  Circulars / Orders; News *    Reservation for SCs/STs/OBCs/Minorities and SCs/STs * Reservation for OBCs and PWDs – Circulars/Orders/Instructions * Reservation for Ex-Servicemen * Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions *  CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates  * CPSEs – Orders/Guidelines – Part I (Service Rules)

    I. Women in Services – Govt. Orders/Instructions regarding concessions, relaxations, etc.
    II. Women in Services – Govt. Orders/Instructions regarding concessions, relaxations, etc. (Subject-Wise)

    I. Women in Services – Govt. Orders/Instructions regarding concessions, relaxations, etc.  

      O.M. dated 05.06.2014 - Child Care Leave (CCL) in respect of Central Government Employees as a result of 6th CPC recommendations - Clarification (34.5 KiB, 1,401 hits)

      O.M. dated 13.02.2014 - Representation of SC, ST, OBC, Minorities and Women on Selection Boards/Committees (380.1 KiB, 1,769 hits)

      O.M. dated 30.01.2014 - 62nd Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee - Age relaxation in the case of widows, divorced women and women judicially separated from their husbands who are not remarried (343.5 KiB, 2,167 hits)

      O.M. dated 27.08.2012 - Clarification on the admissibility of House Rent Allowance (HRA) during the Child Care Leave (CCL) (677.7 KiB, 2,432 hits)

      O.M. dated 27.08.2012 - Clarification on the admissibility of House Rent Allowance (HRA) during the Child Care Leave (CCL) (in Hindi) (665.1 KiB, 1,851 hits)

      O.M. dated 01.08.2012 - Extension of orders of grant of Child Care Leave to all civilian Female Industrial Employees of the Central Government (45.7 KiB, 1,057 hits)

      O.M. dated 31.05.2012 - Grant of Child Care Leave to civilian female industrial employees of defence establishments (39.4 KiB, 901 hits)

      O.M. dated 20.10.2011 - Grant of Child Care Leave to civilian female industrial employees of defence establishments (40.6 KiB, 972 hits)

      O.M. dated 26.09.2011 - Grant of Special Allowance for child care for women with disability (17.5 KiB, 1,038 hits)

      Notification dated 27.08.2011 - Amendment of Leave Rules regarding Child Care Leave (59.0 KiB, 1,888 hits)

      Concessions & Relaxations for women in Central Government services (39.5 KiB, 1,733 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.08.2010 - Exemption from payment of fees extended to examination, test or interview conducted by Central Autonomous Bodies (29.8 KiB, 1,049 hits)

      O.M. dated 30.09.2009 - Posting of husband and wife at the same station (160.7 KiB, 2,931 hits)

      Letter dated 15.7.2009-Exemption of the women candidates from payment of fees from competitive examinations (60.9 KiB, 987 hits)

      O.M. dated 8.7.2009 - Special provisions in Rules & Regulations - Need to increase the representation of women in Central Govt. jobs (251.0 KiB, 2,029 hits)

      O.M. dated 3.7.2009-Concerted effort to increase representation of women in Central Government jobs (62.4 KiB, 960 hits)

      National Policy for Empowermentof Women (48.0 KiB, 986 hits)

      O.M. dated 5.6.1986 - Recruitment of women candidates to Central Civil Services Posts (338.9 KiB, 1,042 hits)

    II. Women in Services – Govt. Orders/Instructions regarding concessions, relaxations, etc. (Subject-Wise)

    Child Care Leave/Maternity Leave/Child Adoption Leave/paternity Leave * Exemptions from Payment of Fees * Posting of Husband and Wife at Same Station * Representation in Selection Boards/Committees

    Child Care Leave/Maternity Leave/Child Adoption Leave/paternity Leave

    (i) Child Care Leave/Maternity Leave
    (Please see latest Orders/O.Ms. on Leave Rules Page)

      DoPT O.M. dated 03.04.2018 - Child Care Leave (CCL) - Clarification Reg. (40.6 KiB, 4,805 hits)

      O.M. dated 05.06.2014 - Child Care Leave (CCL) in respect of Central Government Employees as a result of 6th CPC recommendations - Clarification (34.5 KiB, 1,401 hits)

      O.M. dated 27.08.2012 - Clarification on the admissibility of House Rent Allowance (HRA) during the Child Care Leave (CCL) (677.7 KiB, 2,432 hits)

      O.M. dated 27.08.2012 - Clarification on the admissibility of House Rent Allowance (HRA) during the Child Care Leave (CCL) (in Hindi) (665.1 KiB, 1,851 hits)

      O.M. dated 01.08.2012 - Extension of orders of grant of Child Care Leave to all civilian Female Industrial Employees of the Central Government (45.7 KiB, 1,057 hits)

      O.M. dated 31.05.2012 - Grant of Child Care Leave to civilian female industrial employees of defence establishments (39.4 KiB, 901 hits)

      Notification dated 04.04.2012 - Amendment to Rule 43-AA of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 -Child for the purpose of these rules (29.5 KiB, 1,400 hits)

      O.M. dated 20.10.2011 - Grant of Child Care Leave to civilian female industrial employees of defence establishments (40.6 KiB, 972 hits)

      Notification dated 27.08.2011 - Amendment of Leave Rules regarding Child Care Leave (59.0 KiB, 1,888 hits)

      Letter dated 21.02.2011 - Acceptance of recommendations of the 6th CPC relating to introduction of Child Care Leave (189.7 KiB, 1,824 hits)

      O.M. dated 30.12.2010 - Child Care Leave to Central Govt. employees - regarding (168.0 KiB, 1,223 hits)

      O.M. dated 07.09.2010 - Child Care Leave in respect of Central Govt. employees as a result of 6th Pay Commission recommendations - Clarification regarding (53.0 KiB, 1,695 hits)

      O.M. dated 3.3.2010 - Sixth Pay Commission - Child Care Leave Waiving of age restriction of 18 years for Govt. servant having mentally challenged, disabled children (149.5 KiB, 2,205 hits)

      O.M. dated 2.12.2008 - Child Care Leave-Clarification regarding (82.3 KiB, 1,827 hits)

      O.M. dated 18.11.2008-Child Care Leave in respect of Central Government employees as a result of 6th CPC-Clarification regarding (91.8 KiB, 1,438 hits)

      O.M. dated 29.09.2008-Grant of Child Care Leave ito women Government employees - Clarification regarding (90.5 KiB, 1,693 hits)

      O.M. dated 11.9.2008 - Enhancement of maternity leave and Child Care Leave (270.0 KiB, 2,146 hits)

    (ii) Child Adoption Leave/Paternity Leave

      Letter dated 20.8.2009-Enhancement to Child Adoption Leave to 180 days and extension of Paternity Leave (175.6 KiB, 1,656 hits)

      O.M. dated 22.7.2009-Enhancement of Child Adoption Leave from 135 days to 180 days and extension of the facility of Paternity Leave to adoptive fathers (78.6 KiB, 1,381 hits)

    Concessions/Relaxations for Women

      Concessions & Relaxations for women in Central Government services (39.5 KiB, 1,733 hits)

      O.M. dated 8.7.2009 - Special provisions in Rules & Regulations - Need to increase the representation of women in Central Govt. jobs (251.0 KiB, 2,029 hits)

    Exemptions from Payment of Fees

      O.M. dated 03.08.2010 - Exemption from payment of fees extended to examination, test or interview conducted by Central Autonomous Bodies (29.8 KiB, 1,049 hits)

      Letter dated 15.7.2009-Exemption of the women candidates from payment of fees from competitive examinations (60.9 KiB, 987 hits)

    Posting of Husband and Wife at Same Station

      O.M. dated 30.09.2009 - Posting of husband and wife at the same station (160.7 KiB, 2,931 hits)

    Representation in Selection Boards/Committees

      O.M. dated 13.02.2014 - Representation of SC, ST, OBC, Minorities and Women on Selection Boards/Committees (380.1 KiB, 1,769 hits)

    Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. However, in case there is any complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf[dot]in.

    Seniority – Rules/Orders

    11/02/2023 Comments Off on Seniority – Rules/Orders

    More: Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE Circulars/Orders * Latest Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)/DoP&PW Orders/Circulars * Latest Ministry of Finance Orders/Circulars * Vigilance Clearance * Right to Information Circulars/Orders * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates

    UNMISSABLE ORDERS

    RECENT ORDERS/INSTRUCTIONS

    I. Seniority – Rules/Orders (Date Wise)
    II. Seniority – Rules/Orders (Subject Wise)

    I. Seniority – Rules/Orders (Date-Wise)

    2022-2023

      DoPT O.M. dated 16.9.2022 - Determination of seniority (219.5 KiB, 6,846 hits)

    Prior to 2022

      DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021 - SC Judgement of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors.-Revised instructions relating to seniory of DRs and promotees and inter-se seniority thereof (180.2 KiB, 4,578 hits)

      O.M. dated 04.03.2014 - Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees - instructions thereof (95.6 KiB, 2,993 hits)

      O.M. dated 30.04.2013 - Seniority of officers holding posts / grades in grades merged in pursuance of recommendations of 6th CPC (111.4 KiB, 1,371 hits)

      O.M. dated 13.09.2012 - Seniority of officers holding posts or grades in grades merged in pursuance of recommendations of 6th CPC (101.1 KiB, 1,467 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.04.2012 - Consolidated instructions on seniority contained in DOP&T'S O.M. dated 3.6.1986 - Clarification regarding (22.1 KiB, 1,641 hits)

      O.M. dated 13.04.2011 - Consolidated orders on seniority-Fixation of seniority of released ES and SSC Officers of the Armed Forces-Clarification regarding consolidated instructions dated 3.7.1986 (58.5 KiB, 1,154 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 11.11.2010 - Seniority - Consolidated orders on (373.7 KiB, 2,008 hits)

      DOPT's Instructions and Guidelines on Seniority (11.11.2010) (300.8 KiB, 3,215 hits)

      O.M. dated 20.08.2008 - Selection of candidates on direct recruitment basis - Consideration of CRs for selection of candidates - instructions regarding (121.8 KiB, 979 hits)

      O.M. dated 3.3.2008 - Consolidated orders on seniority - Clarification regarding (99.3 KiB, 1,545 hits)

      O.M. dated 21.1.2002-Seniority of SC-ST Govt. servants on promotion by virtue of rule of reservation-roster (84.4 KiB, 1,600 hits)

      O.M. dated 27.3.2001-Seniority of persons absorbed after being on deputation (137.7 KiB, 1,201 hits)

      O.M. dated 01.05.2000 - Court orders against GOI instructions on service matters - consultation with Min. of Law and DOPT on the question of filing appeals before implementation of Court orders (63.1 KiB, 1,139 hits)

      O.M. dated 30.01.1997 - Seniority of SC & ST officers promoted earlier vis-a-vis general candidate promoted later (104.0 KiB, 7,381 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.11.1995 - Fixation of seniority in the case of delayed promotion due to penalty (9.0 KiB, 1,358 hits)

      O.M. dated 09.08.1995 - Candidates recommeded by UPSC or SSC for appointment to Central Civil Services and post delay in joining-revival of offers of apptt. after their cancellation-determination of (416.2 KiB, 2,168 hits)

      O.M. dated 04.11.1992 - Delinking seniority from confirmation (243.2 KiB, 909 hits)

      O.M. dated 07.02.1990 - Inter-se seniority of promotees from more than one feeder grades - Clarification regarding (10.9 KiB, 1,231 hits)

      O.M. dated 06.01.1989 - Petitions relating to personnel matters filed in Courts, CAT, etc. - handling of (172.8 KiB, 996 hits)

      O.M. dated 12.12.1988 - General principles of seniority - Preparation of a combined Select List of promotees where quotas have been laid down for various posts in the feeder grade (241.0 KiB, 1,397 hits)

      O.M. dated 3.7.1986 - Consolidated orders on seniority (1.8 MiB, 1,893 hits)

      O.M. dated 04.12.1979 - Crucial date for determining age limits, etc. for competitive examinations held by UPSC and SSC (78.4 KiB, 944 hits)

      O.M. dated 24.06.1978 - Starting point in the recruitment roster for the purpose of seniority - procedure regarding (138.9 KiB, 970 hits)

    II. Seniority – Rules/Orders (Subject-Wise)

    Candidates from UPSC/SSC (Delayed Joining) * Consolidated Instructions * Consultation with MoL & DoPT * DRs Vs. Promotees * Inter se Seniority * Merged Posts/Grades (6th CPC) * Promotion after Penalty

    Candidates from UPSC/SSC (Delayed Joining)

      O.M. dated 09.08.1995 - Candidates recommeded by UPSC or SSC for appointment to Central Civil Services and post delay in joining-revival of offers of apptt. after their cancellation-determination of (416.2 KiB, 2,168 hits)

    Consolidated Instructions

      DoPT O.M. dated 16.9.2022 - Determination of seniority (219.5 KiB, 6,846 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.04.2012 - Consolidated instructions on seniority contained in DOP&T'S O.M. dated 3.6.1986 - Clarification regarding (22.1 KiB, 1,641 hits)

      O.M. dated 13.04.2011 - Consolidated orders on seniority-Fixation of seniority of released ES and SSC Officers of the Armed Forces-Clarification regarding consolidated instructions dated 3.7.1986 (58.5 KiB, 1,154 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 11.11.2010 - Seniority - Consolidated orders on (373.7 KiB, 2,008 hits)

      DOPT's Instructions and Guidelines on Seniority (11.11.2010) (300.8 KiB, 3,215 hits)

      O.M. dated 3.3.2008 - Consolidated orders on seniority - Clarification regarding (99.3 KiB, 1,545 hits)

      O.M. dated 3.7.1986 - Consolidated orders on seniority (1.8 MiB, 1,893 hits)

    Consultation with MoL & DoPT 

      O.M. dated 01.05.2000 - Court orders against GOI instructions on service matters - consultation with Min. of Law and DOPT on the question of filing appeals before implementation of Court orders (63.1 KiB, 1,139 hits)

    DRs Vs. Promotees

      DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021 - SC Judgement of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors.-Revised instructions relating to seniory of DRs and promotees and inter-se seniority thereof (180.2 KiB, 4,578 hits)

    Inter se Seniority

      DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021 - SC Judgement of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors.-Revised instructions relating to seniory of DRs and promotees and inter-se seniority thereof (180.2 KiB, 4,578 hits)

      O.M. dated 04.03.2014 - Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees - instructions thereof (95.6 KiB, 2,993 hits)

      O.M. dated 07.02.1990 - Inter-se seniority of promotees from more than one feeder grades - Clarification regarding (10.9 KiB, 1,231 hits)

      O.M. dated 12.12.1988 - General principles of seniority - Preparation of a combined Select List of promotees where quotas have been laid down for various posts in the feeder grade (241.0 KiB, 1,397 hits)

    Merged Posts/Grades (6th CPC) 

      O.M. dated 30.04.2013 - Seniority of officers holding posts / grades in grades merged in pursuance of recommendations of 6th CPC (111.4 KiB, 1,371 hits)

      O.M. dated 13.09.2012 - Seniority of officers holding posts or grades in grades merged in pursuance of recommendations of 6th CPC (101.1 KiB, 1,467 hits)

    Promotion after Penalty

      O.M. dated 03.11.1995 - Fixation of seniority in the case of delayed promotion due to penalty (9.0 KiB, 1,358 hits)

    Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published on this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

    Compassionate Appointment – Orders/Instructions

    11/02/2023 Comments Off on Compassionate Appointment – Orders/Instructions

    RELATED/OTHER PAGES:

    More:

    RECENT ORDERS

    I. Compassionate Appointment – Orders/Circulars
    II. Compassionate Appointment – Orders/Circulars (Subject-Wise)

    Compassionate Appointment – Orders/Instructions

    2022-2023

      DoPT O.M. dated 02.08.2022 - Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under Central Government (166.0 KiB, 5,359 hits)

    Prior to 2022

      DoPT O.M. dated 23.08.2021 - Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment - Replacement of Para 13 (regarding Procedure) (146.2 KiB, 7,586 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 20.05.2019 - Voluntary disclosure of information relating to compassionate appointment by the concerned Ministries/Departments on their website (469.0 KiB, 23,442 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 09.10.2017 - Fixation of the pay of the pre-revised pay scale of 1S scale granted to candidates appointed as trainees on compassionate grounds in the 7th CPC - reg. (107.1 KiB, 13,026 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 05.09.2016 - Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment-Review of FAQs dated 30.05.2013/25.02.2015 with regard to married son (118.9 KiB, 22,294 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 21.06.2016-Appointment to the post of Steno. Grade 'D' of CSSS on compassionate ground-Proposed Revised Guidelines (151.3 KiB, 10,349 hits)

      25.02.2015 - Amendment to FAQs on Compassionate Appointment (As on DOPT website) (24.1 KiB, 6,884 hits)

      O.M. dated 07.10.2014 - Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment - regarding (60.2 KiB, 5,509 hits)

      O.M. dated 08.07.2014 - Recommendation of Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Compassionate Appointment (Reminder) (255.6 KiB, 3,184 hits)

      O.M. dated 26.05.2014 - Recommendation of Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Compassionate Appointment (Reminder) (115.6 KiB, 2,544 hits)

      DOPT's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Compassionate Appointment (12.06.2013) (394.5 KiB, 4,515 hits)

      O.M. dated 25.03.2013 - Recommendation of Department related Parl. Standing Committee on Compassionate Appointment - Submission of Annual Report (118.2 KiB, 1,980 hits)

      O.M. dated 16.01.2013 - Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment - regarding (141.8 KiB, 3,220 hits)

      O.M. dated 26.07.2012 - Review of three years time limit for making compassionate appointment (69.3 KiB, 3,003 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.04.2012 - Compassionate appointment - Clarification regarding regulation of conditions and various allowances after 6th CPC recommendation (42.9 KiB, 2,001 hits)

      O.M. dated 12.01.2010 - Govt. policy of appointment on compassionate ground (61.7 KiB, 3,112 hits)

      O.M. dated 11.12.2009 - Review of Scheme of Compassionate Appointment in light of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations (64.1 KiB, 2,014 hits)

      O.M. dated 19.1.2007 - Scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Govt. - Clarification regarding technical posts (22.8 KiB, 1,772 hits)

      O.M. dated 9.10.2006 - Scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Govt. - Calculation of vacancies for small Departments and cadres regarding (961.4 KiB, 1,745 hits)

      O.M. dated 14.06.2006 - Scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Govt. - Determination of vacancies for (879.9 KiB, 1,494 hits)

      O.M. dated 5.5.2003 - Time-limit for making compassionate appointment (1.8 MiB, 2,239 hits)

      O.M. dated 22.6.2001 - Compassionate appointment - Recommendation by the Committee limited to availability of vacancy (792.9 KiB, 1,658 hits)

      O.M. dated 24.11.2000 - Appointment on compassionate ground - Termination of service (1.2 MiB, 1,654 hits)

      O.M. dated 28.12.1999 - Compassionate appointment - Calculation of vacancies by grouping of posts (28.5 KiB, 1,455 hits)

      O.M. dated 20.12.1999 - Compassionate Appointment - Maintenance of other dependent family members of the deceased employee by the appointee (27.5 KiB, 1,761 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.12.1999 - Time-limit for making compassionate appointment (23.3 KiB, 1,821 hits)

      O.M. dated 9.10.2006 - Scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Govt. - Calculation of vacancies for small Departments and cadres regarding (961.4 KiB, 1,355 hits)

    Compassionate Appointment – Orders/Instructions (Subject-Wise)

    Annual Report * FAQ * Married Son  * Pay Fixation * Scheme for Compassionate Appointment/Govt. Policy/Consolidated Instructions/Guidelines * Time Limit * Others * Voluntary Disclosure

    Annual Report

      O.M. dated 25.03.2013 - Recommendation of Department related Parl. Standing Committee on Compassionate Appointment - Submission of Annual Report (118.2 KiB, 1,980 hits)

    FAQ

      DoPT O.M. dated 05.09.2016 - Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment-Review of FAQs dated 30.05.2013/25.02.2015 with regard to married son (118.9 KiB, 22,294 hits)

      25.02.2015 - Amendment to FAQs on Compassionate Appointment (As on DOPT website) (24.1 KiB, 6,884 hits)

      DOPT's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Compassionate Appointment (12.06.2013) (394.5 KiB, 4,515 hits)

    Married Son

      DoPT O.M. dated 05.09.2016 - Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment-Review of FAQs dated 30.05.2013/25.02.2015 with regard to married son (118.9 KiB, 22,294 hits)

    Pay Fixation

      DoPT O.M. dated 09.10.2017 - Fixation of the pay of the pre-revised pay scale of 1S scale granted to candidates appointed as trainees on compassionate grounds in the 7th CPC - reg. (107.1 KiB, 13,026 hits)

    Scheme for Compassionate Appointment/Govt. Policy/Consolidated Instructions/Guidelines

      DoPT O.M. dated 02.08.2022 - Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under Central Government (166.0 KiB, 5,359 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 23.08.2021 - Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment - Replacement of Para 13 (regarding Procedure) (146.2 KiB, 7,586 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 21.06.2016-Appointment to the post of Steno. Grade 'D' of CSSS on compassionate ground-Proposed Revised Guidelines (151.3 KiB, 10,349 hits)

      25.02.2015 - Amendment to FAQs on Compassionate Appointment (As on DOPT website) (24.1 KiB, 6,884 hits)

      DOPT's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Compassionate Appointment (12.06.2013) (394.5 KiB, 4,515 hits)

      O.M. dated 16.01.2013 - Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment - regarding (141.8 KiB, 3,220 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.04.2012 - Compassionate appointment - Clarification regarding regulation of conditions and various allowances after 6th CPC recommendation (42.9 KiB, 2,001 hits)

      O.M. dated 12.01.2010 - Govt. policy of appointment on compassionate ground (61.7 KiB, 3,112 hits)

      O.M. dated 11.12.2009 - Review of Scheme of Compassionate Appointment in light of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations (64.1 KiB, 2,014 hits)

      O.M. dated 19.1.2007 - Scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Govt. - Clarification regarding technical posts (22.8 KiB, 1,772 hits)

      O.M. dated 9.10.2006 - Scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Govt. - Calculation of vacancies for small Departments and cadres regarding (961.4 KiB, 1,745 hits)

    Time-Limit

      O.M. dated 26.07.2012 - Review of three years time limit for making compassionate appointment (69.3 KiB, 3,003 hits)

    Others

      O.M. dated 26.05.2014 - Recommendation of Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Compassionate Appointment (Reminder) (115.6 KiB, 2,544 hits)

    Voluntary Disclosure

      DoPT O.M. dated 20.05.2019 - Voluntary disclosure of information relating to compassionate appointment by the concerned Ministries/Departments on their website (469.0 KiB, 23,442 hits)

    Note: All information/data in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in.

    ACP/MACP – Orders/Circulars

    11/02/2023 Comments Off on ACP/MACP – Orders/Circulars

     More: Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE  Circulars / Orders * Latest Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)/DPPW Orders/Circulars

    UNMISSABLE ORDERS/INSTRUCTIONS

    RECENT ORDERS/CIRCULARS

    1. ACP/MACP – Orders/Circulars
    2. ACP/MACP – Orders/Circulars (Subject-Wise)

    1. ACP/MACP – Orders/Circulars

    2022-2023

      DoPT O.M. dated 21.11.2022 - ACP/MACP (Consolidated Guidelines/Instructions) (137.0 KiB, 8,549 hits)

    Prior to 2022

      DoPT O.M. dated 12.11.2021 - Clarification regarding fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion/grant of NFSG in respect of officers already granted benefits under MACP (289.8 KiB, 9,250 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 07.09.2021 - Clarification regarding fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion/grant of NFSG in respect of those already granted the benefits under MACP - reg. (213.9 KiB, 8,486 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 05.04.2021-Order of Hon'nle Supreme Court dated 05.03.2021 reg. benefits in promotional hierarchy under MACP Scheme and other issues - regarding (1.8 MiB, 9,187 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2020 - Cases pending or decided by Hon'ble High Courts/Tribunals reg. preponement of effective date of MACP Scheme (526.6 KiB, 5,664 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 08.09.2020 - Fixation of pay on grant of benefit under MACPS - Extension of the benefit of entry level pay provided in DoE's O.M. dated 28.09.2018 - reg. (1.1 MiB, 7,128 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 22.10.2019 - Consolidated Guidelines Regarding Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees (881.7 KiB, 9,707 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 27.08.2019 - Seeking data regarding fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion/grant of NFSG in respect of officials who are already granted the benefit under MACP Scheme (171.8 KiB, 9,556 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 20.09.2018 - Option for fixation of pay on MACPS from the date of next increment (DNI) in lower post and fixation of pay from DNI, if opted for, under CCS(RP) Rules, 2016 (448.0 KiB, 9,078 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 04.07.2017-Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Employee-Clarification regarding (95.6 KiB, 14,441 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 17.05.2016-References/Representations/Court Cases in various Ministries/Deptts./Organisations for grant of MACPS benefits in the promotional hieararchy-reg. (791.9 KiB, 14,695 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 01.03.2016 - Reference/Representations/Court Cases in various Ministries/Departments/Organisations for grant of MACPS benefits in the promotional hierarchy-reg. (1.1 MiB, 2,608 hits)

      DOPT O.M. dated 20.01.2016-Representations,Court Cases in various Ministries,Departments for grant of MACPS benefits-Stay Order (81.4 KiB, 13,657 hits)

      O.M. dated 18.02.2015 - Modified ACP Scheme for the Central Government Employees - instructions regarding (48.1 KiB, 11,893 hits)

      O.M. dated 10.12.2014 - Modified ACP Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Government Employees - Clarification regarding (41.6 KiB, 3,175 hits)

      O.M. dated 04.10.2012 - ACP Scheme for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees - regarding (61.1 KiB, 4,010 hits)

      O.M. dated 04.10.2012 - Modified ACP Scheme for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees - Clarification regarding (128.6 KiB, 2,962 hits)

      O.M. dated 13.06.2012 - Modified ACP Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees - Clarifications regarding (68.1 KiB, 2,609 hits)

      O.M. dated 19.04.2012 - Stepping up of pay of PAs of CSSS in case of ACP followed by ad hoc promotion (35.1 KiB, 2,118 hits)

      O.M. dated 20.04.2011 - Summary record of discussions held during the 3rd meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS held on 15.03.2011 under the Chairmanship of the JS (E), DOPT (127.4 KiB, 1,970 hits)

      Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) (1.4.2011) (206.9 KiB, 4,316 hits)

      O.M. dated 24.12.2010 - Modified ACP Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees - Extension of benefits to Officers of HAG Scale of Rs.67000-79000 (108.3 KiB, 1,415 hits)

      O.M. dated 01.11.2010 - Modified ACP Scheme for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees - Clarification regarding (63.6 KiB, 2,210 hits)

      O.M. dated 06,10.2010 - Record Note of Second Meeting of Jt. Committee on MACPS held under the Chairmanship of Jt. Secretary(E), DOPT on 15.09.2010 (208.5 KiB, 1,755 hits)

      O.M. dated 09.09.2010 - Modified ACP Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees -Clarifications regarding (158.5 KiB, 2,906 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.08.2010 - Modified ACP Scheme for the Central Govt. civilian employees - Clarification regarding (49.3 KiB, 2,677 hits)

      O.M. dated 30.7.2010 - Extension of Modified ACP Scheme to Staff Car Drivers of Central Government (72.8 KiB, 1,549 hits)

      O.M. dated 12.4.2010 - Grant of financial upgradation under Modified ACP Scheme (23.3 KiB, 2,602 hits)

      O.M. dated 12.1.2010 - Grant of upgradation under Modified ACP Scheme (34.1 KiB, 2,060 hits)

      O.M.dated 16.11.09 - Modified Assured Career Progression scheme (53.3 KiB, 2,936 hits)

      O.M. dated 19.5.2009 - Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (535.4 KiB, 4,345 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 29.06.2004 - ACP Scheme - Clarification regarding (7.9 KiB, 2,956 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 12.9.2003 - ACP Scheme (929 bytes, 3,193 hits)

    2. ACP/MACP – Orders/Circulars (Subject-Wise)

    ACP/MACP * Benefit of Entry Level Pay * Court Cases * FAQ * Fin. Upgradation * MACP * Pay Fixation

    ACP/MACP Guidelines/Instructions

      DoPT O.M. dated 21.11.2022 - ACP/MACP (Consolidated Guidelines/Instructions) (137.0 KiB, 8,549 hits)

      O.M. dated 04.10.2012 - ACP Scheme for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees - regarding (61.1 KiB, 4,010 hits)

      O.M. dated 19.04.2012 - Stepping up of pay of PAs of CSSS in case of ACP followed by ad hoc promotion (35.1 KiB, 2,118 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 29.06.2004 - ACP Scheme - Clarification regarding (7.9 KiB, 2,956 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 12.9.2003 - ACP Scheme (929 bytes, 3,193 hits)

    Benefit of Entry Level Pay

      DoPT O.M. dated 08.09.2020 - Fixation of pay on grant of benefit under MACPS - Extension of the benefit of entry level pay provided in DoE's O.M. dated 28.09.2018 - reg. (1.1 MiB, 7,128 hits)

    Court Cases

      DoPT O.M. dated 05.04.2021-Order of Hon'nle Supreme Court dated 05.03.2021 reg. benefits in promotional hierarchy under MACP Scheme and other issues - regarding (1.8 MiB, 9,187 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2020 - Cases pending or decided by Hon'ble High Courts/Tribunals reg. preponement of effective date of MACP Scheme (526.6 KiB, 5,664 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 17.05.2016-References/Representations/Court Cases in various Ministries/Deptts./Organisations for grant of MACPS benefits in the promotional hieararchy-reg. (791.9 KiB, 14,695 hits)

      DOPT O.M. dated 20.01.2016-Representations,Court Cases in various Ministries,Departments for grant of MACPS benefits-Stay Order (81.4 KiB, 13,657 hits)

     FAQ 

      Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) (1.4.2011) (206.9 KiB, 4,316 hits)

     Fin. Upgradation

      DoPT O.M. dated 07.09.2021 - Clarification regarding fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion/grant of NFSG in respect of those already granted the benefits under MACP - reg. (213.9 KiB, 8,486 hits)

      O.M. dated 12.4.2010 - Grant of financial upgradation under Modified ACP Scheme (23.3 KiB, 2,602 hits)

     MACP Instructions/Guidelines

      DoPT O.M. dated 12.11.2021 - Clarification regarding fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion/grant of NFSG in respect of officers already granted benefits under MACP (289.8 KiB, 9,250 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 05.04.2021-Order of Hon'nle Supreme Court dated 05.03.2021 reg. benefits in promotional hierarchy under MACP Scheme and other issues - regarding (1.8 MiB, 9,187 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2020 - Cases pending or decided by Hon'ble High Courts/Tribunals reg. preponement of effective date of MACP Scheme (526.6 KiB, 5,664 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 22.10.2019 - Consolidated Guidelines Regarding Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees (881.7 KiB, 9,707 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 20.09.2018 - Option for fixation of pay on MACPS from the date of next increment (DNI) in lower post and fixation of pay from DNI, if opted for, under CCS(RP) Rules, 2016 (448.0 KiB, 9,078 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 04.07.2017-Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Employee-Clarification regarding (95.6 KiB, 14,441 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 17.05.2016-References/Representations/Court Cases in various Ministries/Deptts./Organisations for grant of MACPS benefits in the promotional hieararchy-reg. (791.9 KiB, 14,695 hits)

      DOPT O.M. dated 20.01.2016-Representations,Court Cases in various Ministries,Departments for grant of MACPS benefits-Stay Order (81.4 KiB, 13,657 hits)

      O.M. dated 18.02.2015 - Modified ACP Scheme for the Central Government Employees - instructions regarding (48.1 KiB, 11,893 hits)

      O.M. dated 10.12.2014 - Modified ACP Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Government Employees - Clarification regarding (41.6 KiB, 3,175 hits)

      O.M. dated 04.10.2012 - Modified ACP Scheme for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees - Clarification regarding (128.6 KiB, 2,962 hits)

      O.M. dated 20.04.2011 - Summary record of discussions held during the 3rd meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS held on 15.03.2011 under the Chairmanship of the JS (E), DOPT (127.4 KiB, 1,970 hits)

      O.M. dated 09.09.2010 - Modified ACP Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Govt. Civilian Employees -Clarifications regarding (158.5 KiB, 2,906 hits)

      O.M. dated 03.08.2010 - Modified ACP Scheme for the Central Govt. civilian employees - Clarification regarding (49.3 KiB, 2,677 hits)

      O.M. dated 30.7.2010 - Extension of Modified ACP Scheme to Staff Car Drivers of Central Government (72.8 KiB, 1,549 hits)

      O.M.dated 16.11.09 - Modified Assured Career Progression scheme (53.3 KiB, 2,936 hits)

      O.M. dated 19.5.2009 - Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (535.4 KiB, 4,345 hits)

    Pay Fixation

      DoPT O.M. dated 12.11.2021 - Clarification regarding fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion/grant of NFSG in respect of officers already granted benefits under MACP (289.8 KiB, 9,250 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 07.09.2021 - Clarification regarding fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion/grant of NFSG in respect of those already granted the benefits under MACP - reg. (213.9 KiB, 8,486 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 08.09.2020 - Fixation of pay on grant of benefit under MACPS - Extension of the benefit of entry level pay provided in DoE's O.M. dated 28.09.2018 - reg. (1.1 MiB, 7,128 hits)

      DoPT O.M. dated 27.08.2019 - Seeking data regarding fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion/grant of NFSG in respect of officials who are already granted the benefit under MACP Scheme (171.8 KiB, 9,556 hits)

    Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published on this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

    Copyright DTF.in 2006-2019, All Rights Reserved | Developed & Maintained by Star INXS