The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XVIII]

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of schedule III of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub­Brokers) Regulations, 1992. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222 : (2023) 2 SCR 737

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 - Auction cannot be stayed just because the sale agreement holder offered to pay dues, when the borrower hasn't invoked S.13(8). G. Vikram Kumar v State Bank of Hyderabad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 394 : AIR 2023 SC 2359 : (2023) 5 SCR 624

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule 9(5) of SARFAESI Rules cannot be pressed into service since the auction purchaser was not informed regarding the proceedings pending before DRT at the time of auction or even thereafter - Directs refund of the deposit forfeited by the bank. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Writ petitions in SARFAESI matters - Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2), 13(4), 18 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993; Section 2(g) - Whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the 'debt due' within the meaning of proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets, the amount mentioned in the sale certificate will have to be considered while determining the amount of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In a case where both are under challenge, namely, steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets and also the auction sale of the secured assets, in that case, the “debt due” shall mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person, whichever is higher -The borrower can take the benefit of the amount received by the creditor in an auction sale only if he unequivocally accepts the sale. In a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest. (Para 13-16) Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11 : AIR 2023 SC 368 : (2023) 1 SCR 553

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - Magistrate's Order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC when there is a remedy under the SARFAESI Act. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 26E - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Sections 15 - 23 - 'Priority' conferred / provided under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268 : (2023) 3 SCC 210 : (2023) 1 SCR 873

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14, 17 - Neither District Magistrate nor Metropolitan Magistrate would have any jurisdiction to adjudicate and/or decide the dispute even between the secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4) / order passed under Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal / application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 10) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268 : (2023) 3 SCC 210 : (2023) 1 SCR 873

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 31(i) - When it was the case on behalf of the borrowers that in view of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the properties were agricultural lands, the same were being exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on. (Para 7-8) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : AIR 2023 SC 306 : (2023) 1 SCR 579

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Once the borrower fails to tender the entire amount of dues with all cost & charges to the secured creditor before the publication of auction notice, his right of redemption of mortgage shall stand extinguished / waived on the date of publication of the auction notice in the newspaper in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002. (Para 88) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 8 - Sanctity of Public Auction - It is the duty of the courts to zealously protect the sanctity of any auction conducted. The courts ought to be loath in interfering with auctions, otherwise it would frustrate the very object and purpose behind auctions and deter public confidence and participation in the same. Any other interpretation of the amended Section 13(8) will lead to a situation where multiple redemption offers would be encouraged by a mischievous borrower, the members of the public would be dissuaded and discouraged from in participating in the auction process and the overall sanctity of the auction process would be frustrated thereby defeating the very purpose of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, it is in the larger public interest to maintain the sanctity of the auction process under the SARFAESI Act. (Para 86 - 87) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI matters - High Courts should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 92 – 96) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have applied equitable considerations to overreach the outcome contemplated by the statutory auction process prescribed under the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (v)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9(1) - Borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the SARFAESI Act will get extinguished once the bank publishes an auction notice for the sale of the secured asset. (Para 105 (iii)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (i)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - The two decisions of the Telangana High Court in the case of Concern Readymix v. Authorised Officer, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 783 and Amme Srisailam v. Union Bank of India do not lay down the correct position of law. In the same way, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Pal Alloys and Metal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 2733 also does not lay down the correction position of law. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in n Sri. Sai Annadhatha Polymers v. Canara Bank, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 178 and the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta v. State Bank of India, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 328 lay down the correct position of law while interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (vi) & (vii) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (2) – Conduct of the Bank - Bank is duty bound to follow the provisions of the law as any other litigant. the authorised officer and the Bank cannot act in a manner so as to keep the sword hanging on the neck of the auction purchaser. The law treats everyone equally and that includes the Bank and its officers. The said enactments were enacted for speedy recovery and for benefitting the public at large and does not give any license to the Bank officers to act de hors the scheme of the law or the binding verdicts. (Para 100) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - Multiple applications for extension of time to deposit the outstanding sale amount and interest – Held, the Miscellaneous Application was not maintainable in light of the applicant's failure to comply with the court's orders and statutory provisions - The Court discouraged the practice of filing repeated Miscellaneous Applications without legal foundation and stressed the importance of adhering to statutory procedures. (Para 18) Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 846

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - The Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 could not have withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower. (Para 105 (iv)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - The confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale of the immovable property in form given in appendix (V) to the Rules i.e., in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI. (Para 105 (ii)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1

Service Law

28 years after applying, a man got a job in the postal dept at 50 years of age due to the Supreme Court's Order. Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882

A belated service-related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). (Para 21) Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 883

A candidate accused of a heinous offense cannot claim the right to appointment when the acquittal was on the 'benefit of doubt'. (Para 19) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

A person cannot be deemed to be in service when the first dismissal order is in force. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42 : (2023) 3 SCC 203 : (2023) 1 SCR 893

Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically result in discharge in corresponding disciplinary proceedings. State Bank of India v. P. Zadenga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 850 : AIR 2023 SC 4841

After attending an interview, candidates can't challenge it merely because they feel more marks should've been given. Tanvir Singh v. State of J&K, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253

An applicant does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed just because he/she has qualified in the selection process. (Para 17) Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812

Any request for alternation of date of birth cannot be made after a long delay and especially towards the end of the career of an employee - Employees cannot wake up from their slumber after a long time and seek alteration of date of birth towards the fag end of their career. Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124

Appointment - Acquittal in the criminal case - Even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case, on perusing the facts of the said case and the observations made in the judgement, quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal. It is evident from the facts narrated that after the chargesheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the complainant and filed an application under Section 320 of the CrPC, based on which the offence under Section 341 IPC was compounded. As for the remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent's plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits. (Para 16 & 17) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Appointment - Acquittal in the criminal case - mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors 2 relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken by the State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgement passed by the Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. (Para 19) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Appointment - An employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the disclosure made by a candidate. While doing so, the employer must act with prudence, keep in mind the nature of the post and the duties required to be discharged. Higher the post, more stringent ought to be the standards to be applied. Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, the employer is well within its right to examine the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the offence and verify whether the acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended on technical reasons. If the employer arrives at a conclusion that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed or continued in service. (Para 10) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Appointment cannot be denied citing suppression of material facts when the employer's query was vague in nature. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Appointment can't be denied citing suppression of material facts when the employer's query was vague. State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Appointment in Law Enforcement Agency - The yardstick to be applied in cases where the appointment sought relates to a Law Enforcement Agency, ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy. One must be mindful of the fact that once appointed to such a post, a responsibility would be cast on the respondent of maintaining law and order in the society, enforcing the law, dealing with arms and ammunitions, apprehending suspected criminals and protecting the life and property of the public at large. Therefore, the standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a Law Enforcement Agency must always be higher and more rigourous for the simple reason that possession of a higher moral conduct is one of the basic requirements for appointment to a post as sensitive as that in the police service. (Para 18) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Appointment order of petitioner as constable of police cancelled as it was found that the the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and was under arrest for four days and he consciously concealed the said information - Mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to the reinstatement in service - If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot obviously be inferred that he was falsely involved, or he had no criminal antecedents - Director General being the highest functionary in the police hierarchy, was the best judge to consider the suitability of the petitioner for induction into the police force. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : AIR 2023 SC 1308

Appointments cannot be made over and above the vacancies which have been advertised, except in an emergency situation or for some unforeseen reasons, in public interest or when a policy decision is taken by the State Government in this regard. (Para 21) Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997

As the respondent was not involved in heinous/serious offence or any offence involving moral turpitude, and the fact that in the said criminal case he has been honourably acquitted, therefore, modifying the order of the High Court, we direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent and issue order of appointment to the post of constable in West Bengal Police Force within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. (Para 15) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Candidates accused of heinous offences can't claim right to appointment when acquittal was on 'benefit of doubt'. State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : AIR 2023 SC 4553

CCS (Pension) Rules - Service rendered as contractual employee won't qualify for pensionary benefits. Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation v. Magi H. Desai, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 248 : AIR 2023 SC 1623

Central Civil Service Rules - Retired employee can be appointed as inquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Challenge to selection process - The criteria for evaluation of a candidate's performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate's personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel - Simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Tanvir Singh v. State of J&K, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Communicating an annual confidential report to an employee without sufficient time to challenge it, same as non-communication of a report. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 139 : AIR 2023 SC 1190

Compassionate Appointment - Delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment. Government officials are to act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175 : AIR 2023 SC 1467 : (2023) 2 SCR 611

Compassionate Appointment - Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. (Para 7.5) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175 : AIR 2023 SC 1467 : (2023) 2 SCR 611

Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court Summarises Principles. State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175 : AIR 2023 SC 1467 : (2023) 2 SCR 611

Compulsory retirement order can be set aside if it's found to be punitive & was passed to circumvent disciplinary proceedings. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165 : (2023) 2 SCR 30

Court can quash disciplinary proceedings considering acquittal in criminal case on the same charges. Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1043 : (2024) 1 SCC 175 : AIR 2024 SC 637

Debatable if PIL is not at all maintainable in Service matters: Supreme Court leaves issue of law open. Pratap Singh Bist v. Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 970

Delay and laches vital in service matters, can be seen as acquiescence. Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 883

Departmental Proceedings - Acquittal - The nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any benefit in the latter or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings. (Para 29.2) State Bank of India v. P. Zandenga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 850

Difference in pay-scale based on academic qualifications is valid even if the nature of work is the same. Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35 : AIR 2023 SC 448 : (2023) 1 SCR 1009

Different pay scale for seemingly similar posts are justifiable if there is a reasonable classification. Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2023) 2 SCR 529

Disciplinary Action - Power of judicial review for the Courts in disciplinary action is circumscribed. The Court can only correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and the power exercised is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. (Para 9) Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Disciplinary proceedings contemplated': what does 'contemplate' mean? The Supreme Court explains. State of Haryana v. Dinesh Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1065

Dismissed from Service - Matter stood closed in the year 2004 - The review petition was also dismissed - The petitioner has not filed a curative petition but has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India claiming that injustice has been done to him and the matter should be reopened - No legal system can have a scenario where a person keeps on raking up the issue again and again once it is resolved at highest level. This is complete wastage of judicial time. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, though we limit the amount of costs considering the petitioner is a dismissed person, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund to be utilized for the SCBA library. K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Distinction between simpliciter termination and punitive termination - This distinction is crucial since if the order of termination is punitive or stigmatic in nature, it becomes mandatory to conduct an inquiry following the procedure and an opportunity to be heard has to be given. Failure to do so may make such termination/discharge illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. If an enquiry or assessment is conducted with the aim of uncovering any misconduct by an employee and results in their termination, it is considered punitive in nature. Whereas, if it is focused on evaluating an employee's suitability for a specific job, the termination is considered termination simpliciter and not punitive. (Para 13) State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the Service Regulations. (Para 18, 19) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710

Educational qualification can be a ground for different pay scale even if the nature of duties are the same - Pay scale difference in the posts of Nursing Assistant and Staff Nurse in Border Security Force upheld - Nature of work may be more or less the same but the scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. (Paras 4.4, 5) Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35 : AIR 2023 SC 448 : (2023) 1 SCR 1009

Employee can't seek alteration of date of birth at fag end of career. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124

Employee found unsuitable for job can be dismissed without notice during the probationary period. State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761 : AIR 2023 SC 4202 : (2023) 9 SCC 150

Employees of a state board can't be treated as state govt employees. State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : (2023) 2 SCR 1049

Equal Pay for Equal Work - It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. (Para 14) Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2023) 2 SCR 529

Equal Pay for Equal Work - The doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. (Para 14) Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2023) 2 SCR 529

Even if the Court passes an order of reinstatement in service, an order of payment of back wages is not automatic. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 9) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

Even in case where the information regarding pending criminal case is truthfully furnished and on acquittal therein, an employer has the discretion to consider the antecedents while issuing the letter of appointment. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

For out of turn promotion, parity can't be claimed. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Government employees cannot be denied the annual increment merely because they are to retire on the very next day of earning the increment - The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day - Increment is not an "incentive" to perform well the next year - The entitlement to the benefit of annual increment is due to the service already rendered. (Para 6.7) Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296 : AIR 2023 SC 1956 : (2023) 3 SCR 332

Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules - In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail - There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same. (Para 25) Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 196 : AIR 2023 SC 1591 : (2023) 2 SCR 900

Government servants cannot claim the benefits of Double Overtime Allowance Benefits under the Factories Act, dehors the service rules - Unlike those employed in factories and industrial establishments, persons in public service who are holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State are required to place themselves at the disposal of the Government all the time - Persons holding civil posts or in the civil services of the State enjoy certain privileges and hence, the claim made by the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court, in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042

Govt employees can't be denied annual increment merely because they retired the next day of earning it. Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296 : AIR 2023 SC 1956 : (2023) 3 SCR 332

Govt servants required to be at disposal of Govt all the time; can't claim overtime allowance under Factories Act. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042

Historical similarity in previous pay scales can be considered to allow the same pay scale for similar posts. Union of India v. D.G.O.F. Employees Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 977

Home guards entitled to duty allowance as per minimum pay of police personnel : Supreme Court to Odisha Govt. Prakash Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 213

If in a disciplinary proceeding, the order of penalty can be imposed on the charges proved and the punishment imposed is lawfully sustainable on those charges, it is not for the Court to consider whether those grounds alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. Unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any of those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside. (Para 39) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process. (Para 18) Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812

If the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately their name figures in the merit list - though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment - they do have a limited right of being accorded fair and nondiscriminatory treatment. (Para 15) Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882

In a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the employee. In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the employee depending upon the explanation. (Para 23) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

In absence of sanctioned post, the State cannot be compelled to create the post and absorb the persons who are continuing in service of the State - Direction of the High Court to reinstate after creating the posts and absorb the respondents based on their qualification is not sustainable in law. (Para 54 to 57) Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294 : (2023) 3 SCR 390

In disciplinary proceedings, burden of proof depends on the nature of charge and explanation put forward by the employee. State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

In service jurisprudence, service rules will prevail over conflicting government resolutions. Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 196 : AIR 2023 SC 1591 : (2023) 2 SCR 900

Inquiry proceedings civil servant can be done away with in national security interest. Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 432 : AIR 2023 SC 2391

Issuance of order of appointment is required to be left on the discretion of the employer and the High Court ought not to have taken away the said discretion. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

It is not possible to accept that for the entire period of thirteen years, the employee had no source of income. However, the employer has not come out with the case that from the date of his removal from service, the employee had another source of income. Thus, the employee discharged the burden on him by establishing that he was unemployed. (Para 9) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency, namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies. Unnikrishnan C.V. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256 : AIR 2023 SC 1943

Joining a disciplined force after suppressing criminal cases is a grave misconduct: Supreme Court approves removal of CISF personnel. Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44 : AIR 2023 SC 482 : (2023) 1 SCR 779

Joining the service of a disciplined force like CISF after suppressing criminal cases is a grave misconduct - Removal from service justified. (Para 9, 13) Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44 : AIR 2023 SC 482 : (2023) 1 SCR 779

Judicial review cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence in departmental enquiry proceedings. A Constitutional Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, cannot decide the case as if it is the first stage of the case, as if inquiry is still being conducted and an inquiry report is being prepared. Evidence cannot be re-appreciated at the stage of judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding as if conviction in a criminal trial is being re-examined by the next higher court. Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478 : AIR 2023 SC 2388 : (2023) 5 SCR 447

Judicial review can't be exercised to re-appreciate evidence in departmental enquiry proceedings. Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478 : AIR 2023 SC 2388 : (2023) 5 SCR 447

Lien' of govt servants cease only when they're appointed on another post 'substantively'/confirmed or absorbed permanently. L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : AIR 2023 SC 5214

Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : AIR 2023 SC 1308

No pension for past service if a central govt employee resigns to join another govt post without permission. Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807

Officer given higher pay than others in same cadre : Supreme Court slams favouritism, directs recovery. Dr. P.N. Shukla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1044

Once appointment is declared illegal & void ab initio, one cannot legally continue in service and claim salary. Dulu Deka v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691 : AIR 2023 SC 4650 : (2023) 9 SCC 749

OROP Arrears - After the defence ministry cites difficulty in clearing Rs. 28,000 crores dues in one go, Supreme Court extends timeline. Indian Ex Service Movement v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Pay revision is a matters falling within the domain of executive policy making-What is within the domain of the court, is to examine the impact of such fixation and whether it results in discrimination. (Para 27) Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81 : AIR 2023 SC 792

Payment for Home Guards - Home Guards working in the State of Odisha are entitled to Duty Allowance as per the minimum amount of pay to which the police personnel in the State is entitled to. It further clarified that the Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the police personnel of the State and the Duty Allowance to be paid to the Home Guards should be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase from time to time. (Para 9, 10) Prakash Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : (2023) 5 SCR 490

Pension - Past service as contractual employee to be taken into account for pension. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 662

Pension - Supreme Court holds that the employees of Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board are not entitled to pension on a par with Government employees - Employees of a body corporate created by the State cannot be treated as State Government employees in all respects. Such a corollary proposition would practically amount to merging of the Board with the State Government - Entitlement of pension will be as per the Regulations of the Board. (Para 16.1) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : (2023) 2 SCR 1049

Pension - The right to pensionary benefit is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification - the grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, but a right of the employee, and as such cannot be denied without proper justification. (Para 11 & 12) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037

Pension cannot be denied to employee citing wrongful deductions made towards the CPF scheme. Retired employees cannot be made to suffer due to mistakes committed by their employers. Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 419 : AIR 2023 SC 2270 : (2023) 6 SCR 203

Pension can't be denied to employee citing wrongful deductions made towards the CPF scheme. Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 419 : AIR 2023 SC 2270 : (2023) 6 SCR 203

Power of judicial review exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring "that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court -When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with. (Para 10) Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44 : AIR 2023 SC 482 : (2023) 1 SCR 779

Power of state government and selection committee to reduce cut-off marks after publication of results – Held, advertisement did not confer unbridled power either on state government or on selection committee to modify the selection process by reducing the qualifying marks after the results had already been published – Appeal allowed. (Para 26) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Probation - Employee found unsuitable for job can be dismissed without notice during the probationary period. (Para 19) State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761

Professors entitled to salary for work done till end of academic year despite attaining retirement age mid term. C. Rajendran v. University of Calicut, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 960

Promotion given to employee continuing in service on strength of interim order will lose effect once petition is dismissed. (Para 11) Jagpal Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 771

Promotion given to employee continuing in service on strength of interim order will lose effect once petition is dismissed. Jagpal Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 771 : AIR 2023 SC 4081

Promotion in Services – Communicating grade awarded in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) – Uncommunicated ACR not to be considered for consideration of promotion – Whether ACR communicated with sufficient time to make representation against it be considered? – Held, ACR communicated one day before promotion committee was convened ought not to be considered since employee had 15 days' time to make a representation against it – Further held, either the DPC could have been postponed or the ACR ought not to have been considered and the same ought to have been treated as uncommunicated ACR – Writ petition allowed. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 139 : AIR 2023 SC 1190

Promotion through 'limited dept competitive exam (LDCE)' can't be equated with normal promotion. Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

Public Service Commission cannot recommend more names than what have been advertised and any appointment, which is made in excess to the vacancies, which have been advertised would be arbitrary. The reason being that such selection/appointment would deprive those candidates who are not eligible for appointment at the time these posts were advertised but had become eligible in the subsequent year would be deprived of competing against such posts. (Para 22) Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997

Punishment imposed by disciplinary authority can be interfered with only if it is 'strikingly disproportionate'. Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 : AIR 2023 SC 554 : (2023) 3 SCC 622 : (2023) 1 SCR 961

Rajasthan Non-governmental Educational Institutions Act - Prior approval of director of education required to remove employee. Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2023 SC 539 : (2023) 1 SCR 949

Recruitment process for Junior Civil Judges - Directed the State to take immediate steps to fill 175 vacant posts - Rejected the State Governments plea to conduct Civil Judge recruitment by Public Service Commission instead of a Selection Committee that includes representatives of the High Court – Held, the High Court is best suited to understand the needs of the judicial service - the Judges of the High Court who participate in the selection process possess domain knowledge, both in the subject matter and the nature of the service. (Para 23) Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Reducing cut-off marks after publication of results only to provide employment to a particular category violates Article 14. Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Regularisation - Two conditions for regularisation of daily wage employees - Firstly, initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and Secondly, there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working - No claim for regularization if these conditions are not met. Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2023 SC 832 : (2023) 3 SCC 639

Regularisation can't be claimed if appointment was not by a competent authority & there's no sanctioned post. Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2023 SC 832 : (2023) 3 SCC 639

Regularisation of services - In the absence of sanctioned post, the government can't be compelled to create posts & absorb those in service. Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294

Regularizing service of few employees and not others despite eligibility is violative of Article 14. Raman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520

Retired employees can't claim benefit of subsequent govt decision to increase retirement age. Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : AIR 2023 SC 4059

Retirement age can't be increased based on superannuation age in another similar post. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : AIR 2023 SC 4011

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – by enhancing the age of retirement, the requirement of substitute is delayed, remains bereft of logic, and that in any case, that does not provide a legal ground to force the state government to alter its policy only because such expectations are stated by the central government or because some other states have provided for such an age of discharge. (Para 11) State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – Looking to the very nature of the work and the structure of services, when the state government is the primary authority to decide the service conditions, no mandamus can be issued to the state government to change its policy, regardless of the proportion of the share of the central government in the expenditure burden. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – Supporting the High Court judgment, the amicus curiae contended that the Court can always issue relevant directions to ensure that fundamental rights and protections available to the citizens are not violated. The amicus also pointed out the retirement age of Anganwadi Workers was 65 years in many states and stressed that parity in employment is a reasonable expectation. Held, that as regards the scheme in question, it is clear that even while certain propositions/expectations had been laid by the central government, the existing statutory norms do not provide for uniform age limit for retirement of AWs/AHs; and it is for the state government to decide as regards the service conditions, including the age of discharge. (Para 10) State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – the decision cited by the learned counsel dealing with different eventualities and different principles do not provide any basis for issuance of a mandamus to the state government to change its policy, particularly when the policy is otherwise not shown to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality; rather the state is categorical in its submission that by way of this policy, the age of discharge of AWs/AHs is placed at par with those of the other employees of the state government and Public Sectors Undertakings in the state. (Para 11) State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – the Supreme Court found fault with the High Court for issuing a mandamus to the State Government to change its policy regarding the retirement age of workers. The High Court reasoned that since 90% of expenses of the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme - under which the Anganwadi workers are engaged- are borne by the Central Government, there will not be a fundamental increase in the burden of the State if their retirement age is increased. Held, that this line of reasoning adopted by the High Court is unacceptable. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers - the Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Tripura High Court which directed the State Government to raise the retirement age of Anganwadi workers from 60 years to 65 years. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Right of candidate to be considered in accordance with law – No vested right to advertised post Candidates had right to be considered for appointment to the post in accordance with law – Held, a law which enabled a candidate to get a post could not be changed to facilitate another group of persons, since the candidate acquired a vested right to be considered in accordance with law. (Para 24) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

SBI Officers Service Rules - When the first dismissal order against a person in service is in force, irrespective of all pending litigations or his age of superannuation, he cannot be deemed to be continuing in service. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42 : (2023) 3 SCC 203 : (2023) 1 SCR 893

Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. (Para 36) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

Selection Process - Reduction in cut-off marks to accommodate candidates whose seats were reserved due to horizontal reservation – Difference between qualification for making an application and eligibility criteria determined after examination is conducted – Present matter dealt with not the qualification for making an application, but the eligibility of candidates determined on the basis of cut-off marks – Held, eligibility determined after examination is conducted could not be disturbed. (Para 22) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Selection Process - Whether advertisement made pursuant to notification could be changed – No amendment duly introduced – Modification on the advice of state government – An advertisement made pursuant to a notification would bind the parties – Had all the trappings of a statutory prescription unless it became contrary to either a rule or an act – Held, any change could only be introduced by way of an amendment and nothing else. (Para 23) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Seniority – Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets - Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list. Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant. (Para 7) Sunil v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 374 : AIR 2023 SC 2850 : (2023) 5 SCR 87

Service of Employees in Zilla Parishad should be counted for seniority when ZP has been absorbed by Municipal Corporation. Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229 : (2023) 2 SCR 981

Suppression of Material Information' - Bare perusal of the details of the information sought in Column No. 12 indicates that, it was regarding arrest, detention and conviction by a Court in any offence. In case the answer was 'yes', then full particulars of the arrest or detention or conviction and sentence were required to be furnished. In case the answer was in the negative, no other particulars were required to be furnished. In the case on hand, in reply to the information asked the respondent gave the answer as “no”. As per the contents of the information sought and as per the answer given by the respondent, he is not required to furnish information regarding pending criminal case. Therefore, supply of such information by the respondent does not fall within the expression 'suppression of material information'. (Para 10) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking 2 years' cooling off period for retired judges' post-retirement appointments. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Supreme Court grants notional seniority to private secretaries at Delhi High Court whose marks increased post re-evaluation of answer sheets. Sunil v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 374 : AIR 2023 SC 2850 : (2023) 5 SCR 87

Supreme Court grants notional seniority to private secretaries at Delhi High Court whose marks increased post re-evaluation of answer sheets. Sunil v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 374 : AIR 2023 SC 2850 : (2023) 5 SCR 87

Supreme Court imposes Rs. 50000 cost on Uttar Pradesh govt for filing frivolous appeal challenging gratuity to deceased employee. State of U.P. v. Priyanka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 95 : (2023) 3 SCC 619 : (2023) 1 SCR 385

Supreme Court sets aside order of CBDT passed to compulsorily retire a gazetted officer-any exercise of power that exceeds the parameters prescribed by law or is motivated on account of extraneous or irrelevant factors or is driven by malicious intent or is on the face of it, so patently arbitrary that it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, must be struck down -In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public. (Para 34) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165 : (2023) 2 SCR 30

Supreme Court upholds ante dating of seniority list; says no prejudice caused as separate quotas prescribed for degree & diploma holders. C. Anil Chandran v. M.K. Raghavan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 946

Supreme Court upholds disciplinary action against bank manager for lapses in loan approval; rejects defence of following superiors' instructions. Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Tenure post & appointment made on regular post on tenure basis different': Supreme Court allows lecturer's claim for pay protection. Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 649

The act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had found 65 employees entitled to regularization of employment but only 35 could be regularized, since only 35 posts were available. The Income Tax Department to regularize the services of the remaining entitled employees, from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized, and to pay the back wages and other consequential benefits within a period of six months. (Para 8 & 13) Raman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520

The appellant's claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is not tenable. It observed that the appellant was appointed as a substitute teacher in the pay scale of a primary teacher. In fact, when he filed the first round of proceedings, no plea was raised that he worked as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section. Even before the Tribunal, the argument was only about regularization. Before this Court too, no claim for regularization as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section was made. The Screening Committee having considered him, pursuant to the orders of this Court, had thought it fit to absorb him only as a primary teacher; the Screening Committee itself was pursuant to the orders of this Court; the records of his appointment as a substitute teacher admittedly show that he was only appointed as a substitute primary teacher; it is on the completion of three months as substitute primary teacher that he acquired temporary status and on absorption now he became entitled to certain benefits. (Para 29 - 32) Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806

The employer, if it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out from the range of appointment, as distinguished from the zone of consideration, without rhyme or reason. The employer-State being bound by Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason. (Para 15) Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882

The fact whether an employee after dismissal from service was gainfully employed is something which is within his special knowledge. Considering the principle incorporated in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the initial burden is on the employee to come out with the case that he was not gainfully employed after the order of termination. It is a negative burden. However, in what manner the employee can discharge the said burden will depend upon on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It all depends on the pleadings and evidence on record. Since, it is a negative burden, in a given case, an assertion on oath by the employee that he was unemployed, may be sufficient compliance in the absence of any positive material brought on record by the employer. (Para 7) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

The idea behind extension of retirement age of doctors was to take care of the emergency situation caused by shortage of doctors, which was resulting in affecting the studies or patient care. It was not merely to grant benefits to a particular class. (Para 19) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710

The penalty imposed in this case is “reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I” as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further, to treat the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only. Since the charge of not conducting periodical inspection and the failure to complete the formalities for creating equitable mortgage are supported by evidence, we do not think that the penalty as imposed is disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of the Court. (Para 40) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

The Supreme Court rejects the claim of employees to count the entire period of work-charged service for pension. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371 : AIR 2023 SC 2971 : (2023) 4 SCR 530

The Supreme Court rejects the claim of employees to count the entire period of work-charged service for pension. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371 : AIR 2023 SC 2971 : (2023) 4 SCR 530

The Supreme Court sets aside HC direction to increase the retirement age of Anganwadi workers as 65 years in tripura. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

There are three different categories of employment, if not more, in the country. They are, (i) employment which is statutorily protected under labour welfare legislations, so as to prevent exploitation and unfair labour practices; (ii) employment which falls outside the purview of the labour welfare legislations and hence, governed solely by the terms of the contract; and (iii) employment of persons to civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State. Any Court or Tribunal adjudicating a dispute relating to conditions of service of an employee, should keep in mind the different parameters applicable to these three different categories of employment. (Para 23) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042

To claim backwages, initial burden is on employee to establish that he was not gainfully employed during period of dismissal. (Para 7) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

UGC pay scale: supreme court grants benefit of revised pay scale to two physical instructors despite subsequent karnataka g.o denying benefit. B.C. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 789 : AIR 2023 SC 4328

United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 - Disciplinary proceedings are considered to begin only after the service of a chargesheet and not show cause notice. (Para 20.1) UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 893

United Commercial Bank Officers' Regulations - Disciplinary proceedings begin only after service of the chargesheet. UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 893

Vacancy - Once clear and anticipated vacancies have been advertised, appointments can only be made on these vacancies. Vacancies which could not be anticipated before the date of advertisement, or the vacancies which did not exist at the time of advertisement, are the vacancies for the future i.e., next selection process. (Para 28) Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997

VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired on achieving age of superannuation. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81 : AIR 2023 SC 792

VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired upon achieving the age of superannuation - They cannot claim parity with those who worked continuously, discharged their functions, and thereafter superannuated. VRS employees chose to opt and leave the service of the corporation; they found the VRS offer beneficial to them. (Para 39) Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81 : AIR 2023 SC 792

When a selected candidate joins and then resigns, vacancy must be filled by a fresh selection process & not from the previous merit list. Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812 : (2023) 10 SCC 54

Working for a long period on a contractual basis does not create a vested right to regularization. Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801