Home » Civil Services Rules » Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters and Other Subjects
Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters and Other Subjects

More:  High Court JudgementsLatest 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

  •  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
    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 BanksSC 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 ActSC 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 chargesSC 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 ActSC Judgment dated 07.10.2013 – Thalappan Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. State of Kerala and others
  • Indiscipline – MisbehaviourSC 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 JusticeSC 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, 2005SC 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
    ——————————————————————————————–
  • 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, 472 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, 262 hits)

    —————————————

    CENSUS (CASTE-BASED)

      SC Judgment dated 07.11.2014 - Census Commissioner & Others Vs. R. Krishnamurthy (288.9 KiB, 4,819 hits)

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

      SC Judgment dated 24.10.2013 - Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd. & Another (762.0 KiB, 2,714 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, 3,423 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, 668 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, 4,066 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, 6,537 hits)

    — Others

      SC judgment dated 18.03.2011 - Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO Bank & Others (137.2 KiB, 1,173 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 07.02.2011 - Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (176.8 KiB, 1,058 hits)

      SC judgement dated 26.07.2010 - Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (153.3 KiB, 3,561 hits)


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

      SC Judgment dated 01.11.2012 - NCTE and another Vs. Venus Public Education Society and others (335.7 KiB, 938 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 10.7.2012 - Jaipuria Institutes of Management & Ors. Vs. AICTE (13.4 KiB, 653 hits)

      Supreme Court Judgment dated 11.02.2005 - Prof. Yashpal & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2.7 MiB, 893 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, 1,061 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, 546 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 11.12.2013 - Suresh Kumar Koushal and another Vs. Naz Foundation and others (601.9 KiB, 2,966 hits)

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

    Accident Claims

      SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 - Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors. (26.4 KiB, 713 hits)

    Liability of Accident

      SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 - Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors. (26.4 KiB, 713 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, 1,423 hits)

      SC judgement dated 31.08.2010 - Yadava Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another (121.8 KiB, 815 hits)

      SC judgement dated 22.07.2010 - Arun Kumar Agarwal & anr. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others (306.9 KiB, 1,304 hits)

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

      SC Judgement dated 26.11.2013 - Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma (328.4 KiB, 2,881 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 21.10.2010 - D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchnaiammal - Live-in relationship (136.6 KiB, 2,537 hits)

    ————————————————————
    PASSPORT

      SC Judgment dated 24.01.2008 - Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. (19.2 KiB, 4,788 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, 1,150 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, 2,730 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, 984 hits)

    — CIC & Information Commissioners

      SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 - Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others (205.2 KiB, 6,036 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, 984 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, 94 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, 249 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, 7,513 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, 2,576 hits)

     — Sec. 8(1)(g)

      SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 1,414 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, 9,857 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 03.10.2012 - Girish Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Informtion Commissioner & Ors. (177.5 KiB, 2,813 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 3,887 hits)

     — Sec.9 

      SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 7,513 hits)

     — Sec. 10

      SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 1,414 hits)

    — Sec. 11

      SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 7,513 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 3,887 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, 1,774 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, 6,782 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, 3,007 hits)

     — Doctrine of Precedence

      SC Judgment dated 13.09.2012 - Namita Sharma Vs. Union of India (683.3 KiB, 915 hits)


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

      Supreme Court Judgment dated 02.09.2011 - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (198.3 KiB, 856 hits)

      Supreme Court Judgment dated 09.08.2011 - CBSE & Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (264.4 KiB, 1,074 hits)

      Supreme Court Judgment dated 18.04.2011 - P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. (26.2 KiB, 886 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, 1,667 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 * 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 * 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, 3,009 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, 2,684 hits)

    Appointment

      SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 - Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (497.6 KiB, 9,693 hits)

     — Appointment on bogus certificate set aside

      SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 6,242 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, 3,866 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, 869 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, 1,714 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, 14,388 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, 5,351 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, 273 hits)

    Court Martial

      SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 1,159 hits)

    Defending Officer/Friend of the Accused

      SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 1,159 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, 9,669 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, 6,108 hits)

    Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Bias

      SC Judgment dated 18.10.2000 - Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. (54.2 KiB, 2,284 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, 2,088 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, 2,221 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 12.07.2016 - R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (262.1 KiB, 2,221 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 27.01.1993 - Union of India Vs. K.K. Dhawan (46.1 KiB, 2,697 hits)

    Disciplinary Authority/Power to Institute Disc. Proceedings 

      SC Judgment dated 15.10.2012 - UCO Bank & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Saha (227.4 KiB, 2,206 hits)

    Ex Parte Inquiry

      SC Judgment dated 14.01.2013 - State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (216.6 KiB, 1,953 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, 2,223 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, 195 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, 2,393 hits)

    Indiscipline – Misbehaviour

      SC Judgment dated 24.09.2013 - Davalsab Husainsab Mulla Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (223.4 KiB, 5,632 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, 3,507 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, 4,910 hits)

    Judicial Review – Limitations

      SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 10,504 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 14.08.2014 - The LIC of India & Ors. Vas. S. Vasanthi (232.9 KiB, 3,394 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, 3,062 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 10,504 hits)

    Leave Rules

    — Child Care Leave

      SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - Kakali Ghosh Vs. Chief Secretary, A&N Administration & Ors. (186.4 KiB, 4,958 hits)

    Major Penalty without Inquiry

      SC Judgment dated 13.05.2014 - Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (173.8 KiB, 5,782 hits)

    Misappropriation

      SC Judgment dated 05.01.2015 - Diwan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others (177.6 KiB, 5,214 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, 6,504 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 29.04.1969 - A.K. Kraipak & Ors, etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (51.4 KiB, 4,532 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, 249 hits)

    Passport

      SC Judgment dated 24.01.2008 - Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. (19.2 KiB, 4,788 hits)

    Pension/Gratuity

      SC Judgement dated 14.08.2013 - State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (247.5 KiB, 494 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, 10,561 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, 2,393 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, 1,723 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, 5,952 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, 14,116 hits)

    RRs 

      SC Judgment dated 23.08.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri G.R. Rama Krishna & Anr. (170.4 KiB, 1,905 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, 7,093 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, 3,945 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, 3,641 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 14.11.2014 - Anotony Cardoza Vs. State of Kerala (150.1 KiB, 7,882 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, 5,466 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, 6,496 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 19.09.1994 - Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (11.0 KiB, 1,018 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, 9,083 hits)

    Reinstatement

    – Salary

      SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - R.S. Misra Vs. Union of India and Others (177.9 KiB, 2,375 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, 4,863 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, 2,141 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, 9,975 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, 9,693 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 2,864 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, 6,721 hits)

    Migration to General Seat

      SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 - Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors. (434.8 KiB, 2,314 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, 4,309 hits)


    — Reservation for Jats Quashed

      SC Judgment dated 17.03.2015 - Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India (365.7 KiB, 10,382 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, 566 hits)

    —Reservation in Promotion 
    (i) 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, 2,506 hits)

    (ii) 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, 4,106 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others (429.0 KiB, 5,962 hits)

      SC Order dated 05.06.2018 - The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Vijay Ghogne & Ors. (30.6 KiB, 4,807 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 11.03.2016 - Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (287.6 KiB, 2,667 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, 5,591 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, 14,728 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, 1,875 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, 3,698 hits)

      SC Order dated 12.09.2014 - Union of India and Others Vs. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (259.1 KiB, 7,096 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 08.10.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. (330.9 KiB, 4,999 hits)

      SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,117 hits)

      Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,274 hits)

      Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 3,707 hits)

    Reservation for Transgender Persons

      SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others (525.2 KiB, 8,307 hits)

    — Scrutiny Committee

      SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 2,864 hits)

    — Others

      SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,117 hits)

      Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,274 hits)

      Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 3,707 hits)

    Res Judicata

      SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 6,242 hits)

    Retirement Age

      SC Judgment dated 24.09.2014 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Atul Shukla etc. (321.4 KiB, 5,737 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, 444 hits)

    Second Marriage

      SC Judgment dated 09.02.2015 - Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (207.4 KiB, 10,384 hits)

    Seniority – Ad Hoc Service

      SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - State of Haryana & Others Vs. Vijay Singh and Others (65.3 KiB, 3,007 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, 230 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, 505 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, 8,112 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 19.10.2012 - Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs. Union of India and others (265.9 KiB, 1,232 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 20.01.1999 - Apparel Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (46.0 KiB, 1,577 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 13.08.1997 - Visakha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (37.3 KiB, 939 hits)

     Termination

      SC Judgment dated 13.01.2015 - Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (196.1 KiB, 10,500 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, 6,466 hits)

    Unauthorized Absence

    — Unauthorised Absence

      SC Judgment dated 15.02.2012 - Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (163.4 KiB, 2,531 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, 4,164 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, 1,222 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, 5,952 hits)

    Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement 

      SC Judgment dated 22.07.2008 - Director General ESIC & Anr. Vs. Puroshottam Malani (69.4 KiB, 4,132 hits)

    Others/UncategorizedJudges 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, 3,909 hits)

    Uncategorized

      SC Judgement dated 19.08.2011 - State of UP & Ors. Vs. Luxmi Kant Shukla (149.9 KiB, 1,385 hits)

      SC judgement dated 01.03.2011 - State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (51.3 KiB, 1,730 hits)

      SC judgement dated 27.08.2010 - Union of India & anr. vs. Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar (118.7 KiB, 3,864 hits)

      SC judgement dated 18.08.2010 - Union of India & ors. vs. P.C. Ramakrishnayya (152.7 KiB, 2,690 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 13.08.2010 - State of M.P. vs. Harishankr Bhagwan Tripathi (93.7 KiB, 2,008 hits)

      SC Judgement dated 12.08.2010 - M.A.A. Annamalai vs. State of Kerala & another (158.4 KiB, 1,980 hits)

      SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,117 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 19.12.2008 - Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National bank & Ors. (128.8 KiB, 2,199 hits)

      SC Judgment dated 29.10.1971 - Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur (34.2 KiB, 2,055 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, 273 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, 461 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, 434 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, 6,341 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, 515 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, 9,860 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, 8,307 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.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.9/5 (160 votes cast)
    Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters and Other Subjects, 3.9 out of 5 based on 160 ratings

    Check Also

    Coronavirus - Orders

    CORONAVIRUS: Government Orders, Guidelines and Helplines …

    Coronavirus (COVID-19): Government Orders, Guidelines and HelplinesMore …Coronavirus: Government Orders, Guidelines and Helplines———————————————————————————-HELPLINE NUMBERSCentral Helpline …

    Sign in to browse DTF.in for FREE!

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 3.9/5 (160 votes cast)
    Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters and Other Subjects, 3.9 out of 5 based on 160 ratings