Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry Against Officers Responsible For Flawed Compassionate Appointment

Case Title: Vikrant Sengar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 17732 of 2022]

The Allahabad High Court recently denied relief to a petitioner dismissed from service on grounds that he obtained compassionate appointment without disclosing full facts, thereby vitiating the appointment with incurable defects.

The Court also directed inquiry into the role of officials who were responsible for petitioner's appointment in the first instance.

Departmental Appeal Not Automatically Abated Upon Death Of Employee, Denial Of Post Terminal Benefits Has Consequences On Heirs: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Smt. Munni v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 2479 of 2025]

The Allahabad High Court has held that departmental appeal is not automatically abated upon death of the employee as the order in such proceedings has serious civil consequences and affects the post terminal benefits on the legal heirs of the deceased employee.

Disciplinary Action | Punishment Order Not Invalid For Mere Non-Mention Of Specifics Of Show Cause Notice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dharvendra Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 290 [WRIT - A No. - 9632 of 2025]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 290

The Allahabad High Court has held that unless there is any clear illegality, punishment order cannot be held to be invalid merely because it does not include all specifics of the show cause notice.

Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case Not Ground For Denying Compassionate Appointment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 289 [WRIT - A No. - 947 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 289

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for denying compassionate appointment and the discretion with the employer to grant appointment must be exercised objectively.

It further held that the character certificate given by the District Magistrate holds some weightage in considering a person's application for compassionate appointment.

Even If Workman's Written Statement Is Not Rebutted, Labour Court Must Consider Evidence Before Passing Award: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Omrao Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Up And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 28075 of 2025]

The Allahabad High Court has held that even if no rebuttal has been filed to the workman's written statement, the Labour Court must look at the evidence and apply its judicial mind while passing the order.

It held that merely because of Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, the evidence cannot be ignored, and the award cannot be passed solely based on the averments made by the workman.

State Can Clarify 'Equivalence Of Qualification' For Recruitment Even After Commencement Of Selection Process: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Abhinav Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 19283 of 2023]

The Allahabad High Court has held that the State Government is competent to clarify its position regarding 'equivalence of qualification' for recruitment to a post, even after commencement of selection process.

If Disability Is Acquired During Service, Employee Must Be Shifted To Suitable Post Instead Of Termination: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Laljee Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7815 of 2024]

The Allahabad High Court has held that where disability is acquired during the course of the service, instead of dispensing the services of the employee, he/she must be shifted to a suitable post.

Fraud Unravels All Solemn Transactions': Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Compassionate Appointee Terminated After 27-Yrs Service

Case Title: Krishna Kant v. State of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT – A No. - 10029 of 2025]

Holding that fraud vitiates everything else, the Allahabad High Court has denied any relief to the employee who had worked for 27 years as compassionate appointee, citing grounds of fraud committed by him in obtaining the appointment.

VRS Application Must Be Processed Notwithstanding Pending Misconduct Charges If Employee Is Medically Unfit To Face Inquiry: Allahabad High Court

Case Name : Manohar Singh v. Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Case No. : SPECIAL APPEAL No. 420 of 2025

A Division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Siddharth Nandan held that an employee's application for VRS (voluntary retirement) must be processed without regard to pending misconduct charges when a medical condition renders a disciplinary inquiry impossible

UP Police Officer Can't Resign Without Mandatory 2-Month Notice Under Statutory Regulations: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ajeet Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 14825 of 2018]

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a Police Officer seeks resignation, they must provide the department with the mandatory two-month notice period mandated by Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations read with the Police Act, 1961.

Can't Be Punished More Than Once: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To CISF Constable Awarded Punishment Earlier For Same Misconduct

Case Title: Prabhu Nath Yadav v. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs [WRIT - A No. - 1020 of 2006]

The Allahabad High Court said that a major penalty cannot be imposed on a CISF personnel for the same misconduct for which minor penalty was already imposed, reiterating that "no person can be punished more than once for the same misconduct".

Suspension Of State Tax Officer For Delayed Report Unjustified When Authority Failed To Act In GST Fraud Case: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Malikhan Singh v. State of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 15409 of 2025]

The Allahabad High Court has held that where loss is caused to the State, a State Tax Officer may not be suspended for mere delay in submitting a report. Justice Vikas Budhwar held that this would be especially impermissible in a case where the authority to act on the report in time chooses not to do so.

Allahabad High Court 'Shocked' As Cancer-Stricken Teacher's Transfer Plea Rejected Despite 'Sympathetic' Consideration Order

The Allahabad High Court on Monday expressed its strong displeasure over the conduct of the Secretary, UP Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, for rejecting the transfer representation of an Assistant Teacher suffering from breast cancer, despite a specific prior direction by the Court to consider her case 'sympathetically'.

Constituent Institution Employees Cannot Claim Central University Benefits: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr. S.K. Pant Professor and others Versus Union of India and others [WRIT - A No. - 16734 of 2012]

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that in the absence of specific policy, staff of constituent institutions cannot claim the same benefits as those awarded to Central University Employees.

No Employee Should Be Retired With Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Compelling Circumstances/Very Serious Charges: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 4 [WRIT - A NO. 16300 OF 2024]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 4

While granting interest on delayed payment of post-retiral dues to a Nagar Palika employee, the Allahabad High Court observed that unless there are compelling reasons or serious charges, an employee should not be retired with disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

Chargesheet Issued In 2009, No Inquiry For 15 Years: Allahabad High Court Terminates Disciplinary Proceedings

Case Title: Ram Bali Ram v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 7 [WRIT - A No. - 14564 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 7

Recently, the Allahabad High Court terminated the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner-employee in which chargesheet had issued in 2009 and no action was taken since then.

Petitioner was a Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Though he was set to retire on 31.12.2009, he was suspended on 29.12.2009 due to a pending inquiry against him. He was served a chargesheet on 29.12.2009. After his retirement, the post retiral dues were withheld and there was no action regarding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

Power Of Transfer Exercised As Substitute For Infliction Of Lawful Punishment Is Malice In Law: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 19 [WRIT - A No. - 16814 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 19

The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order for transfer of the petitioner by the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited as being malicious and without justification. It was held that the transfer order cannot be used a measure for punishment.

“The exercise of the power of transfer as a substitute for the infliction of lawful punishment in exercise of the employer's disciplinary jurisdiction, is verily an instance of malice in law,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

Allahabad High Court Quashes GO To The Extent It Denied Gratuity To Teachers Continuing Beyond Superannuation

Case Title: Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52 [WRIT - A No. - 292 of 2025]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a Government Order to the extent it denied gratuity to teachers who opted to continue beyond their age of retirement, citing primacy of statute over executive fiat.

Petition was filed challenging Clause 4(1) of G.O. dated 22.06.2018 as well as communication of rejection of claim for gratuity to the petitioner. By said G.O., gratuity was denied ostensibly due to teachers working for additional years, which entitled them to more service benefits.

[U.P Govt Servant Seniority Rules] No Provision For Finding Authority To Redetermine Seniority After Final List Has Been Prepared: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shiv Datt Joshi And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Secretariat Administration Dept. Lko And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82 [WRIT - A No. - 9193 of 2023]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that under the U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 once a seniority list is published, the authority publishing the same becomes functus officio and cannot reagitate the seniority list again and again.

Justice Alok Mathur held

“On perusal of the U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991, we find that there is no provision for review of the final seniority list which has been once prepared after following the procedure prescribed under rule 5, meaning thereby that once a final seniority list has been issued after deciding the objections filed by the concerned parties against the tentative seniority list, finding authority becomes functious officio and does not retain any power to repeatedly exercise the same power to redetermine the seniority between the same group of persons again and again.”

Employee Cannot Be Paid Back Wages For Work Missed Due To Confinement In Jail, 'No Work No Pay' Applies: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shivakar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 84 [WRIT - A No. - 10045 of 2020]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 84

The Allahabad High Court has denied relief to an employee who was confined in jail for almost 3 years holding that missed work due to confinement in jail does not entitle the employee to get back wages for the said period as the principle of 'no work no pay' applies.

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Centre, Railways For Denying Notional Increment To Employees Retiring A Day Before July 1

Case Title: R.K. Prasad and others v. Union of India and others [WRIT - A NO. 13305 OF 2024]

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Union of India and various departments of Indian Railways for denying the benefit of notional increment to employees retiring on 30^th June, despite the decision of the Supreme Court in Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others and Union of India & Ors. Vs M. Siddaraj.

Approval Granted 30 Yrs Ago Can't Be Withdrawn On Ground That Post Was Not Created By Competent Authority: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shafique Ahmad v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6586 of 2024]

Allahabad High Court has held that approval for a post sanctioned 30 years ago cannot be withdrawn only on grounds that it was not created by competent authority. It held that the person employed on such post cannot be denied salary after 30 years of continuous work and being paid without allegations of fraud or malpractice.

Legal Heirs Can't Seek Compassionate Appointment When Major Penalty Imposed On Deceased Employee Remains On Record: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Saurabh Lal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 16327 of 2022]

The Allahabad High Court has held that legal heirs of a deceased employee are disqualified from seeking compassionate appointment when major penalty imposed remains in record at the time death and not where the major penalty though imposed, had adverse impact only for few years.

A major penalty (not specified) was imposed on the father of the petitioner for a period of 2 years. After the expiry of this period the petitioner's father was granted promotion to the post of Manager of Union of India, Branch Collectrate, District Mau, U.P. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Deputy Branch Head at Branch Amiliya, District Rewa (U.P.).

Order Of Termination Of Probationer Neither Dismissal Nor Removal Unless It Is Against Employee's Character Or Integrity: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sengar v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 63857 of 2007]

The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of termination of a probationer is neither an order of dismissal nor removal unless there is something against his character or integrity, which would make it an order of punishment.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held

“It is well settled that termination of services of a probationer under the Rules of the Employment or in exercise of Contractual Right is neither per se dismissal nor removal. However, if the order visits the employee against his character or integrity, it would be an order by way of punishment irrespective of whether the employee was a mere probationer or temporary.”

Heirs Of Deceased Employee Shouldn't Be Denied Reimbursement Of Medical Bills On Technical Grounds Like Limitation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Maimuna Begum v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 122 of 2025]

While dealing with issue of reimbursement of medical bills, the Allahabad High Court has held that where there is entitlement of incidental benefits of service, the same should not be denied on grounds of delay and limitation in law.

Petitioner, widow, approached the employer for reimbursement of the medical bills of her husband. Her claim was rejected as being barred by limitation. Accordingly, she approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleading that she being a widow was in shock of the death of her husband and could only approach the authority after her recovery.

Stigmatic: Allahabad High Court Quashes Food Corporation's Unilateral Order To Recover Alleged Excess Fee Paid To Empanelled Advocate

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Dixit v. Union Of India And 7 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41735 of 2024]

The Allahabad High Court has quashed orders issued by the Food Corporation of India for recovering alleged excess fees paid to an empanelled advocate, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

The Court held that the authorities had overstepped their jurisdiction in passing a stigmatic order which was depriving the petitioner of the compensation for the services he had offered.

A division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the inquiry report in question was not provided to the petitioner and no show cause notice was issued to him against the alleged excess payments made to him.

No Mandatory Requirement Of Graduation Or Post-Graduation Prescribed By Govt For Post Of Anganbadi Karyakatri: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt Chandani Pandey v. State Of Up And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3371 of 2025]

The Allahabad High Court has held that for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri, whether the candidate has done graduation or has a post-graduation degree is irrelevant. It held that the merit list must be prepared based on the minimum qualification, i.e., High School and Intermediate qualifications, not graduate and post-graduate degrees.

Petitioner approached the High Court seeking consideration for her candidature on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri, which was rejected because she could not upload her post-graduation degree with the application form due to technical glitch.

Compassionate Appointments Not Intended As Windfall For Kin Of Deceased, Only Meant To Keep "Kitchen Fire Burning": Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Chanchal Sonkar v. Chairman, State Bank Of India And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1680 of 2025]

Recently, while dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court observed that “compassionate ground appointments are not intended to create a windfall for the kin of the deceased. The employer is only required to assess the financial condition which keeps the kitchen fire burning.”

This observation was made by Justice Ajay Bhanot in the context that financial conditions for grant of compassionate appointment have not been defined anywhere but has to be examined in light of the applicable law.

Losing Control Over Subordinates Is Not Misconduct: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Jail Superintendent

Case Title: Raj Kishore Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reforms Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT A No. - 6716 of 2024]

While setting aside order deducting 10% pension of the Jail Superintendent for 3 years on account of misconduct, the Allahabad High Court held that misconduct is different from carelessness, or inaction and therefore, no punishment could have been given under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulation.

It was held that under the said regulation, pension can be withheld due to grave misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss to the government, which does not include losing control subordinates leading to prisoners escaping.

Can't File Miscellaneous Application To Seek Interest On Gratuity After Disposal Of Writ Petition: Allahabad HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:26054

Allahabad High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Prakash Singh dismissed an application seeking interest on delayed gratuity, filed by a retired office assistant. The court held that once a writ petition is finally decided, a miscellaneous application seeking substantive reliefs like interest, is not maintainable. The court explained that gratuity and pension are statutory rights and not govt largesse. However, it held that post-judgement modifications are not possible unless permitted by law.

When Two Procedures Exist Under Standing Orders, Management May Select Either Unless Mala Fide Proven: Allahabad HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:30708

Allahabad High Court: A single judge bench of justice Brijraj Singh dismissed a writ petition, holding that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) properly followed their Standing Orders by striking off the employee's name following his unauthorised absence. The court found that the employee was given adequate opportunity through show cause notices, and that the petition suffered from inexcusable delay.

Employees Provident Fund Act] No Appeal Lies Against Rejection Of Review Plea, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another [WRIT - C No. - 9281 of 2025]

Relying on its earlier decision in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Another, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a writ petition would be maintainable against the order in review under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as no statutory appeal is provided against such order.

Once Candidates Are Absorbed On Regular Posts, Irregularity In Initial Appointments Is Deemed To Have Been Cured: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Devendra Singh v. State Of Up And 4 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 167 of 2024]

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the appellants-employees were absorbed against vacancies in regular posts, any irregularity which would have existed at the time of their initial appointment would be deemed to have been cured.

While dealing with subseqeunt termination of employees due appointments being made on unsanctioned posts, the bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held the appellants were not at fault even though there was irregularity in their initial appointments.

Disciplinary Action | Punishment Order Not Invalid For Mere Non-Mention Of Specifics Of Show Cause Notice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dharvendra Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 290 [WRIT - A No. - 9632 of 2025]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 290

The Allahabad High Court has held that unless there is any clear illegality, punishment order cannot be held to be invalid merely because it does not include all specifics of the show cause notice.

The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,

“This Court is of the opinion that a punishment order cannot be held invalid merely on the ground that it does not specifically mention the details of the show cause notice or the written reply submitted by the petitioner, if the substance of both is duly considered and discussed in the order. Unless there is a manifest procedural irregularity or a clear illegality apparent on the face of the record, such minor omissions would not render the order unsustainable in the eyes of law.”

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Contracting Second Marriage During Subsistence Of First Constitutes Grave Misconduct Justifying Compulsory Retirement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Name : The Director General, CISF & Ors. vs. Kudipudi Suri Babu

Case No. : WRIT APPEAL NO: 48/2025

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held that contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage constitutes grave misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, justifying penalties such as compulsory retirement for members of disciplined forces.

Person Officiated To Higher Post On Orders Is Entitled To Pay In That Cadre Even If Later Found To Be Ineligible: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case title: The Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division and four others vs Sri K. Narayana Murthy

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who was officiated to a higher post on official orders is entitled to the salary of that post, regardless of subsequent findings of ineligibility.

A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed the order in a writ petition challenging decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed that the respondent be given the pay of the cadre he was officiated to, for his period of officiation, irrespective of having the requisite qualifications. The CAT also entitled the respondent to all consequential benefits including pension fixation.

Disciplinary Orders Attain Finality Upon Communication, Can't Be Unilaterally Modified: AP HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:APHC:2016 | B. Asheervadam v. UCO Bank

Andhra Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N set aside UCO Bank's unilateral revision of disciplinary punishment against a former Assistant Manager. The court held that the bank's act of enhancing punishment without issuing notice or seeking response from the affected employee was illegal and manifestly arbitrary. The court clarified that disciplinary authorities cannot arbitrarily modify penalty orders and impose harsher punishments. Further, it held that compulsory retirement automatically entitles an employee to service benefits.

Daughter-In-Law Integral Part Of Family, Entitled To Compassionate Appointment: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Number: WRIT PETITION (AT) No.2139 OF 2021

Case Name: Smt. K. Hamakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.

The Court further noted that while the government recognises a son or daughter of the deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, the daughter-in-law, despite not being traditionally classified as family, should also be extended the same benefit.

Loading, Maintenance And Pay Loader Workers Not Short Period Employments, Entitled To Provident Fund Under EPF Act: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 11/2025

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that employees engaged by security agencies for the purposes of loading and unloading, office or factory maintenance and Pay Loader work are covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) and are entitled to the Provident Fund.

A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held that the employees mentioned above cannot be equated with those persons who are “employed for a short period on account of some passing necessity or some temporary emergency beyond the control of the company” and are, thus, entitled to the benefits of the EPF Act.

Seniority For Promotion Is Determined By Date Of Promotion To Feeder Category, Not From Date Of Initial Appointment: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case No. : Writ Petition Nos. 27026 and 27865 of 2024

Name of the case: T. Venkateswarlu and Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

A single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that seniority for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector is determined by the date of promotion to the feeder category (Head Constable/ASI), not from the date of initial appointment as a Police Constable.

Court Can Order Reinstatement Of Acquitted Employee If Charges, Evidence In Disciplinary Proceedings Same As Criminal Case: AP High Court

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 3995 2017

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not grant a right to the employee to claim reinstatement however if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are similar and if evidence, witnesses and circumstances are the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension.

ESI Contribution, Can't Exempt Establishment Based On Pvt Insurance And Not Having Local Dispensary: AP HC

Neutral Citation: APHC010687162011

Andhra Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the mere absence of an ESI dispensary nearby cannot exempt an establishment from liability under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (“ESI Act”). The court clarified that only the appropriate govt is empowered to grant such exemptions under Section 87 of the Act, and that such exemptions ought to follow a separate application and inquiry process.

Armed Forces Tribunal

Personnel Permitted To Live Outside Quarters Can't Be Denied CILQ/HRA Benefits: Armed Forces Tribunal

Case Name : Nb Sub Vinod Kumar Chauhan vs Union of India and Ors.

Case No. : OA 665/2014

A Division bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal comprising Justice Anu Malhotra and Rear Admiral Dhiren Vig held that a personnel officially posted over and above the authorized strength of a unit cannot be denied CILQ/HRA benefits, as lawful posting carries with it the corresponding entitlements

Bombay High Court

Employees Provident Fund Act | EPFO Cannot Issue Prohibitory Order U/S 8-F Without Prior Notice To Debtor: Bombay High Court

Case Title: B.T. Kadlag Constructions v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 12754 OF 2025]

The Bombay High Court held that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation cannot issue a prohibitory order under Section 8-F of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, without first issuing a notice to the debtor of the employer and giving an opportunity to file a statement on oath, as mandated under Section 8-F(3)(i) and (vi). The Court observed that the impugned order was passed in complete violation of the statutory scheme and principles of natural justice.

Delay In Deciding Reference Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Relief': Bombay High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995

Case Title: Sarva Shramik Sangh v. The Commissioner & Ors. [Writ Petition NO. 2644 OF 2020]

The Bombay High Court has held that delay in adjudication of an industrial reference cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny just relief to workmen whose services were illegally terminated. The Court observed that when the delay is not attributable to the workmen and the termination is found to be in violation of law, reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.

Removal From Service For Non-Disclosure Of Involvement In Trivial Offence Is A Harsh Punishment': Bombay High Court Sets Aside Termination

Case Title: Nitin Sadashiv Khapne v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 53 of 2024]

The Bombay High Court has held that non-disclosure of a past conviction for a trivial offence cannot, by itself, justify termination of a Class-IV employee appointed on compassionate grounds. The Court observed that authorities are required to consider the nature of the offence, the duties of the post, and the family circumstances of the employee before inflicting the extreme penalty of removal from service.

Workers Can't Be Denied Permanent Status Merely Due To Unavailability Of Sanctioned Posts': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rahul Pittu Savalkar & Ors. v. Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 2683 of 2023]

The Bombay High Court has held that workmen who have completed the requisite period of continuous service cannot be denied permanent status merely on the ground that sanctioned posts are unavailable. The Court emphasised that such a denial would amount to continued exploitation of the workers, contrary to welfare legislation and the mandate of social justice.

Employee Need Not Deposit Retrenchment Compensation As Pre-Condition To Challenge Termination: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Surendra v. Agrofab Machineries Pvt. Ltd. [Writ Petition No. 5656 of 2021]

The Bombay High Court has held that an employee cannot be compelled to deposit the amount of retrenchment compensation as a condition for challenging his retrenchment. The Court observed that retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a statutory right of the employee and is intended to provide subsistence during unemployment. Making its deposit a precondition for litigation may force employees to withdraw challenges due to financial hardship.

Non-Use Of Mandatory Portal Can't Be Ground To Reject Appointment When Portal Was Non-Functional: Bombay HC

Case Name : Vidyapeeth Society, Kolhapur & Ors. Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case No. : WRIT PETITION NO. 13868 OF 2023

A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that rejection of a teacher's appointment approval was unsustainable because the mandatory 'Pavitra Portal' was non-functional at the time of recruitment, and the Education Officer failed to respond to the school's prior communications.

Receiver Appointed For Sale Of Assets Cannot Be Treated As Employer To Run Partnership Firm': Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Court Receiver, High Court Bombay v. Mumbai Labour Union & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2310 of 2007]

The Bombay High Court has held that a Court Receiver appointed to sell the assets of a dissolved partnership firm cannot be treated as an “employer” under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the purpose of running the business or making applications for closure. The Court observed that once the Receiver is appointed to sell assets, the business of the firm stands closed, and directions to reopen the factory or pay wages to workers are legally unsustainable.

Inability To Create Permanent Posts No Grounds To Employ Temporary Workers For Unreasonably Long Period': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pradip Ramesh Shinde & Ors. v. Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon [Writ Petition No. 7949 of 2025]

The Bombay High Court has held that the inability to create permanent posts or financial limitations cannot justify employing workers who perform permanent and essential duties on a temporary basis for years together. The Court observed that continuing such workers on short-term or contractual appointments amounts to unfair labour practice and violates the constitutional principles of equality and dignity in employment.

Maharashtra Police Academy Falls Within Purview Of 'Industry' U/S 2(j) Industrial Disputes Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Maharashtra Police Academy v. Bharati Yashwant Salve [WRIT PETITION NO. 9690 OF 2025]

The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Police Academy (MPA) is an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and upheld the direction of the Industrial Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent, who had worked as a Computer Operator on daily wages. The Court observed that the functions performed by the Academy were not confined to sovereign activities and that clerical or computer-related duties undertaken in such an institution fall squarely within the definition of “industry”.

Bombay HC Sets Aside ESIC Order For Denying Hearing And Relying On Undisclosed Reports

Case title: Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 99

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh set aside the Employees' State Insurance Corporation's (ESIC) rejection of Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal. The court found that ESIC violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting a hearing, despite disputed facts about when the company received the original order. The court also ruled that ESIC's order was flawed as it relied on an undisclosed committee report. Thus, the matter was remanded to the ESIC Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.

Failure To Follow Retrenchment Procedure, Employee Crossing Retirement Age, Bombay HC Directs Lumpsum Compensation

Case Title: J Fibre Corporation v. Maruti Harishchandra Amrute

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 101

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne partially allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The court held that an employee who had already crossed retirement age could not be reinstated, but was entitled to lumpsum compensation for the period between illegal termination and retirement. The court observed that while the employer had valid business reasons for reducing staff, failure to follow proper retrenchment procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the termination illegal. Thus, the court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,58,073 covering the period from termination until the employee's retirement date.

Chairman Of Industrial Establishment Held Liable For Non-Compliance With Labor Court Order: Bombay HC

Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 137

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.

Payment Of Gratuity Delayed Beyond One Month Of Retirement, Attracts 10% Interest: Bombay HC

Case Title: Chetana Rajput v. Modern Education Society

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 155

Bombay High Court: A division bench comprising of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe held that Nowrosjee Wadia College had to pay gratuity with 10% interest to a retired teacher, as their retirement benefits had been delayed without justification. The court held that educational institutions cannot withhold gratuity for more than one month, even if there are disputes over the pension calculation.

If Fresh Appointment Made After Termination, Previous Service Period Cannot Be Counted For Pension Calculations: Bombay HC

Case title: Dr. V.N. Madhu vs. S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College & Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.253 OF 2020)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163

Bombay High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that prayed for the counting of earlier service in pension calculations. The court held that any reappointment made after terminating the previous service cannot be linked to the earlier service period. The court explained that if previous service was terminated, the reappointment made after proper selection process is considered afresh for pension calculations.

If An Employee Is Exonerated In Disciplinary Proceedings, Interest Ought To Be Provided On Delayed Payment Of Retirement Benefits: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:17375-DB

Bombay High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe allowed a writ petition that was filed by a widow asking for interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits to her late husband. The court ruled that when an employee is acquitted or exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, the retirement benefits ought to be paid along with interest from the date of retirement. Further, the court rejected the argument that there was no liability to pay interest. The court held that even if the proceedings are abated, interest ought to be paid.

Retired Employee Entitled To Interest On Delayed Retirement Benefits After Exoneration In Departmental Inquiry: Bombay HC

Case Title: Narayan Pundalik Pathade v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through Its Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 111

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe ruled in favor of a retired Municipal Corporation employee, directing payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits. The court held that when retirement benefits are withheld due to pending inquiry and the employee is subsequently exonerated, interest becomes payable from the date following retirement. It clarified that the doctrine of restitution applies in such cases.

Part-Time Teachers In Night Junior Colleges Not Entitled To Pensionary Benefits Under MEPS Rules: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:11831-DB | Rajani Rajan Dixit v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that was filed by a retired night school teacher seeking pension. The court held that part-time service in a night junior college do not qualify for pension as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act).

Voluntarily Abandoning Service Is Not Retrenchment: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5139

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Anil L. Pansare set aside multiple Industrial Court orders that had directed the reinstatement and back wages of several employees. These employees were absent from duty without notice. The court held that prolonged absence despite repeated calls amounted to voluntary abandonment of service, and not termination. Thus, the court held that retrenchment procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable.

Payment Of Gratuity Act Overrides Other State Pension Rules: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5311

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of justice MS Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Act'), prevails over the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('MCS Rules'), unless a specific exemption is provided under Section 5 of the Act. The court clarified that the mere pendency of proceedings or any minor punishment under the latter, cannot justify withholding gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Act.

Labour Court Cannot Grant Monetary Relief Without Pre-existing Entitlement: Bombay HC Clarifies Scope Of Recovery Under Section 33C(2), Industrial Disputes Act

Case Tile: Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala v. Casby Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 104

'Delay In Deciding Reference Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Relief': Bombay High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995

Case Title: Sarva Shramik Sangh v. The Commissioner & Ors.

Case No.- Writ Petition NO. 2644 OF 2020

The Bombay High Court has held that delay in adjudication of an industrial reference cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny just relief to workmen whose services were illegally terminated. The Court observed that when the delay is not attributable to the workmen and the termination is found to be in violation of law, reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.

A bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav was hearing writ petitions filed by the employer and trade union, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in 2019. The case concerned the termination of workmen from a hospital in 1995 when they sought permanency. The Industrial Tribunal had concluded that the termination of the workers was illegal, but did not reinstate them due to the lapse of time. Instead, it awarded the workers a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh.

Payment Of Gratuity Act Applies To Zilla Parishad Employees: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5300

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench): A single judge bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, applies to Zilla parishad employees. However, the court explained that Section 4(6) of the Act allows the withholding or forfeiture of gratuity if an employee faces criminal proceedings that involve moral turpitude.

Industrial Disputes Act; Section 33(C)(2) Only Applies If Entitlement Is Established Through Undisputed Evidence: Bombay HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15061

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), consisting of Justice Prafulla Khubalkar dismissed a challenge to a labour court award that provided overtime wages with interest to retired employees. The court held that an employees' right to overtime wages was a pre-existing statutory right under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, and that it can be enforced through Section 33(c )(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Bombay HC Finds Chairman Of Industrial Establishment Liable For Non-Compliance With Labor Court Order

Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 154

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.

Calcutta High Court

Service In DA-Getting School Should Be Counted For Pension If It Was Considered For Appointment In Government-Aided Institution: Calcutta HC

Case Name : The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Radhe Shyam Tripathi & Ors.

Case No. : MAT 916 of 2025

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty held that service rendered in a DA-getting school counted by the State for appointment in Government-aided Institution, must also be counted as qualifying service for pension

Deputationist Can Be Repatriated Anytime For Unsatisfactory Conduct; No Vested Right To Continue On Deputation: Calcutta HC

Case Name : Vukkem Rambabu Vs. Union of India and Others

Case No. : WPCT 94 of 2025

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated at any time if conduct is unsatisfactory, provided that the procedure under DOPT OM 17.06.2010 is duly followed.

Employee Moving To Another Cadre Can't Later Claim Regular Promotion In Former : Calcutta High Court

Case Name : Balaram Naskar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.S.T. 111 of 2024

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that the employee who availed Career Advancement Scheme and subsequently left the cadre cannot claim regular promotion benefits granted later to Bhumi Sahayak cadre.

Invalid Pension To Medically Discharged Defence Staff, 10-Year Service Minimum Not Applicable: Calcutta HC

Case Name : The Union of India & Ors. Vs Gandeti Vasudeva Rao (Ex Sep No.1396744-H)

Case No. : WPCT 152 of 2025

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising ACJ Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that Invalid pension is payable for medical discharge regardless of minimum service of 10 years if the disability is permanent.

Gazette Notification Is Mandatory Under CCS Rules For Recognition Of Name Change To Claim Family Pension : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Smt. Kajari Karmaker @ Kajari Marick vs. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

Case No. : WPA 3897 of 2025

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that a Gazette notification is mandatory for recognition of a name change of a government employee or their family member for pensionary benefits. Further affidavits and newspaper publications alone are insufficient to meet this procedural requirement.

Illegal Termination Violating Natural Justice Mandates Reinstatement, Not Mere Compensation: Calcutta HC

Neutral Citation: WPA 862 of 2022 & WPA 938 of 2022

Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury set aside a labour court's order that denied reinstatement to a bus driver, despite finding his termination to be illegal. The court held that when termination violates principles of natural justice, reinstatement should be awarded instead of mere compensation.

Diploma Holder Paid Excess Salary Of Degree Holder Due To Administrative Error, Calcutta HC Denies Recovery After 18 Years

Case Name : Tarun Kanti Naskar vs. State of West Bengal & Others

Case No. : WPA 20672 of 2022

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Smita Das De held that recovery of excess salary paid due to administrative error, without any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is impermissible, especially after a long lapse of time.

Long-Serving Employees Can't Be Denied Pension Just Because Their Posts Weren't Reflected On I-OSMS Portal: Calcutta HC

Case Name : Dilip Hari vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors

Case No. : WPA 2944 of 2025

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Gaurang Kanth held that pension and retiral benefits cannot be withheld from long-serving municipal employees solely because their details were not uploaded against sanctioned posts in the i-OSMS portal due to digital system lapses.

Disabled Persons Entitled To Posting At Same Place Even After Promotion Under Policy Framed Pursuant To International Obligations: Calcutta HC

Case Title: ANIRBAN PAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De has held that a policy mandating that disabled persons remain posted at the same place even after promotion is binding, especially when framed under international obligations. A disabled person cannot be denied the benefit of such a policy even if reversion is sought by him under compelling circumstances.

Continuing Wrong By State Creating Continuous Injury : Calcutta HC Upholds Condonation Of Service Deficiency & Grants Pension

Case Name : The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Bansi Badan Kole & Anr.

Case No. : MAT 665 of 2025

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J. and Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. held that in case of the continuing wrong creating a continuous source of injury due to delay on part of the State, the grant of pension upon condonation of deficiency in service is allowed.

Continuing Wrong By State Creating Continuous Injury : Calcutta HC Upholds Condonation Of Service Deficiency & Grants Pension

Case Name : The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Bansi Badan Kole & Anr.

Case No. : MAT 665 of 2025

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J. and Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. held that in case of the continuing wrong creating a continuous source of injury due to delay on part of the State, the grant of pension upon condonation of deficiency in service is allowed.

Railways Can't Cancel Duly Published Promotion Panel On Vague Administrative Grounds; Prior Notice To Selected Candidates Mandatory: Calcutta HC

Case Name : Union of India and Others vs Anup Mondal and Others

Case No. : W.P.C.T. 204 of 2024

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the cancellation of a duly published selection panel by the Railway Authorities, without providing due notice to the selected candidates, is unsustainable in law. Authorities are bound to comply with RBE No. 192 of 2019 and Rule 228 of IREM Vol. I, which mandate prior notice before cancelling results. A selection panel can be scrapped only for well-founded reasons.

Past Misconduct Of Employee Can Be Considered In Article Of Charge For Determining Quantum Of Punishment : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Yeshveer vs. Union of India and Others

Case No. : FMA 1537 of 2016

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De held that past misconduct of an employee can be referred to in a charge-sheet to determine punishment without making the proceedings illegal.

Adoption Of Pay Revision Scheme Doesn't Automatically Bind Employer To Its Retrospective Date : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Keya Kar vs. The State of West Bengal & Others

Case No. : APO No. 49 of 2025

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that a cooperative society's decision to implement ROPA 2009 from August 2014 without arrears is valid, and it is not bound to grant benefits from January 1, 2006.

Period Spent On Extraordinary Leave For Super-Specialty Course Can't Be Counted As Teaching Experience For Promotion: Calcutta HC

Case Name : Dean in Charge, ESI-PGIMSR & Ors. vs. Dr. Bijita Dutta & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.C.T. 103 of 2025

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the period spent on extraordinary leave for pursuing a super-specialty course does not count toward the mandatory teaching experience required for promotion.

Departmental Proceedings Instituted Before Retirement Can Continue; Punishment May Be Imposed Irrespective Of Pecuniary Loss : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Verma & Anr.

Case No. : FMA/1398/2019

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De held that departmental proceedings instituted before retirement can validly continue under Rule 9(2) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and punishment may be imposed even after superannuation for grave misconduct or negligence, irrespective of pecuniary loss to the Government.

Application Of Roster Point To Clear And Anticipated Vacancies Prevents Anomalous Appointments: Calcutta HC

Case Name : Ivana Hossaini & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : FMA 697 of 2025

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya held that applying roster points separately to clear and anticipated vacancies is necessary to prevent anomalies and ensure fairness if anticipated vacancies did not materialize.

Calcutta High Court Upholds Gratuity Entitlement Despite Corporate Insolvency Proceedings

Case No.: WPA 532 of 2025 | M/s. Stesalit Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing the payment of gratuity to an employee. The court ruled that gratuity payments remain a statutory obligation even after a company undergoes Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). It held that Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code explicitly excludes gratuity funds from forming part of the corporate debtor's estate. Lastly, the court noted that CIRP merely facilitates a change in management and does not extinguish a company's obligations under the labor laws.

Prior Option To Work As Para Teacher Shouldn't Act As Deterrent, Calcutta HC Permits To Work As Samprasarak For Better Service Benefits

Case No. : W.P.A. 29070 of 2024

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that prior exercised option to work as a para teacher should not act as a deterrent to the employee to work as Samprasarak/Samprasarika to avail better service tenure and benefits.

Employee's Service In NTPC School, Approved By West Bengal Board , Must Be Considered For Pension: Calcutta HC

Case No. : W.P.A. 28603 of 2024

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that the employee's service at NTPC High School (7th April 1993 to 4th July 2002), though in a recognized unaided institution, must be considered for pensionary benefits as it was approved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Government of West Bengal.

Nature Of Duties Determines 'Workman' Status Under Industrial Disputes Act: Calcutta HC

Case No.: WPA 281 of 2025 | Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition that challenged an industrial tribunal's holding that an accountant was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court ruled that despite his accounting role, the workman primarily performed clerical functions without any supervisory or managerial authority. It explained that actual job functions, not designation, determine 'workman' status.

Delay In Appointment, Employee Entitled For Qualifying Service For Pension, But No Wages: Calcutta HC

Case No.: W.P.S.T. 210 of 2024

Calcutta High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya allowed a petition that was filed by a doctor, whose pension was denied due to insufficient qualifying service. The court ruled that if the Government delays in implementing court mandated absorption of an employee, the period of delay should be counted towards the qualifying service for pension purposes. The court held that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the delay caused by the authorities.

Increase Of Working Hours Without Compensation In Government Mints, Calcutta High Court Finds Tribunal Award Reasonable

Case No.: WPA 4724 of 2022 | Calcutta Mint Workers Union & Ors. v. National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Ors.

Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award that denied compensation to mint workers for increased working hours. The court found that extending working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission was reasonable, as it was accompanied by enhanced pay and benefits.

Departmental Proceedings After Compulsory Retirement, Since Not Under Rule 9, CCS (Pension) Rules, Can't Continue : Calcutta HC

Case No: MAT 739 of 2017

Calcutta High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra dismissed two cross appeals. Both appeals arose out of a single judge order that directed the release of retirement benefits to a former RPF officer. The court explained that proceedings initiated under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987, cannot continue after compulsory retirement. Further, the court also held that since the proceedings were not initiated under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“Pension Rules”), the pension benefits could not be withheld either.

Determination Of Employment Status Is A Mixed Question Of Law And Fact; Requires Adjudication By Industrial Tribunal: Calcutta HC

Case No.: WPA 28424 of 2024

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed the writ petition filed by the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IIMC). The bench held that an Industrial Tribunal is the right forum to determine if IIMC was the principal employer. It further held that mere denial by IIMC was not sufficient to preclude a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It ruled that an employer-employee relationship is a mixed question of law and fact, and must be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

Government Employee Dying A Day Before 60th Birthday Is Deemed Under 60, Dependent Eligible For Compassionate Appointment : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Sk. Monikul Hossain VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.A. 28275 OF 2024

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that a government employee is deemed not to have completed 60 years of age if they die one day before their 60th birthday, therefore making their dependent eligible for compassionate appointment.

Daily-Rated And Casual Workers Must Be Counted While Determining Gratuity Act Applicability: Calcutta HC

Case No: WPA 2763 of 2025

Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) allowed the grant of gratuity to a former employee of Midnapur District Service-cum-Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. The court held that the union came within the scope of Section 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that denying these dues after 34 years of service amounted to unfair labour practice.

Long-Term Casual Workers Performing Essential Duties Are Entitled To Regularization, Reduction In Workload Not Valid Ground To Deny It : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Case No. : WPA 27693 of 2024

The Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that long-term casual workers performing essential duties are entitled to regularization, and a reduction in workload is not a valid ground to deny it.

Employer Can't Alter Recorded D.O.B. Of Government Employee Beyond Prescribed 5-Year Period From Date Of Initial Appointment : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Sabita Sen v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.A. 4656 of 2025

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Aniruddha Roy, J. held that an employer cannot unilaterally alter the recorded date of birth of a government employee beyond the prescribed five-year limitation period from the date of joining.

Authority Imposing Damages Must Provide Detailed Reasoning For Penalties Under EPF Act: Calcutta HC

Case No.: WPA 1945 of 2025 | Central Board of Trustees, through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 Regional Office Howrah v. The Registrar Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Anr.

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Industrial Tribunal's order that had set aside damages imposed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The Court held that authorities imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund Act must provide detailed reasoning and proper calculation of penalties. It found that the original order was arbitrary as it lacked proper reasoning and had imposed damages for periods when the school was an exempted establishment. The court ruled that the power to award damages under Section 14B is quasi-judicial in nature and must follow principles of natural justice.

Provident Fund's “Reserve & Surplus” Amount Transferred To Statutory Fund, Employees Can't Claim It Separately From Provident Fund Dues : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Dilip Kumar Choudhury & Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur, EPFO & Ors.

Case No. : WPA 27817 of 2023

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that once a provident fund trust is dissolved and its funds are transferred to the statutory Provident Fund, employees cannot claim a separate share from the “Reserve & Surplus” fund after receiving their full dues.

Employer Withholding Best Evidence, Grounds To Draw Adverse Inference In Favor Of Employee: Calcutta HC

Case No.: WPA 28770 of 2024 | Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Sk. Alam Ismail & Ors.

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that an employee engaged as a 'badli' worker for over 37 years was entitled to gratuity. The court rejected the employer's argument that he did not complete the requisite continuous service. The court held that an employer's failure to produce best evidence leads to an adverse inference against the employer, and the burden of proving non-eligibility lies with the employer.

Illegal Disciplinary Proceedings And Termination Of Services Of Co-op Bank Employee : Calcutta HC Sets Aside Order

Case No.: WPA 4221 of 2023

Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the disciplinary proceedings against a senior bank employee were conducted by officials who did not have the authority to do so. Consequently, the court also set aside his termination order. The court ruled that both the charge sheet and the termination order violated Rule 106 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.

Punishment Of Censure, Claim For Promotion During Disciplinary Proceedings Rightly Rejected : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Dibyajyoti Ghosh v. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors.

Case No. : MAT 1751 of 2024

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending at time of recommendation for promotion can be granted promotion only prospectively after the conclusion of proceedings.

Shortfall In Pensionable Service Caused By State's Delay In Absorption Can't Defeat Pension Claim : Calcutta High Court

Case Name : Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.S.T. 210 of 2024

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the delay by the State in absorbing an employee cannot be used to deny pension benefits if such delay alone causes shortfall in qualifying service.

“No Work, No Pay” Doesn't Apply If Appointment Delay Is Due To Authorities' Fault : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Padmavathi Sakkinala v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : FMA 1235 OF 2024

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Harish Tandon, J and Prasenjit Biswas, J held that the principle of “No Work, No Pay” does not apply when the delay in appointment is due to the fault of the authorities, thus entitling the affected person to monetary benefits.

Central Govt Is Appropriate Authority For Industrial Disputes Involving Nationalized Companies Irrespective Of Contrary Notifications : Calcutta HC

Case Name: M/s. Braithwaite & Co. Limited v. Second Industrial Tribunal & Ors.

Case No.: WPA 2477 of 2012

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that when an industry is nationalized and carried on under the authority of the Central Government pursuant to a statute like the Nationalization Act, the Central Government is the “appropriate government” under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of industrial disputes.

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Granted To Posts Under Urban Local Bodies In Absence Of Specific Policy: Calcutta HC

Case Name : Chaitali Roy (Mandal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : WPA/20811/2022

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. held that the compassionate appointments cannot be granted to posts under Urban Local Bodies in the absence of a specific policy governing such appointments.

Central Administrative Tribunal

CAT Srinagar Directs J&K Administration To Grant Full Service Benefits To Retired Officer After 20 Years

Case-Title: Khazir Mohammad Dar vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors , 2025

The Srinagar bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the J&K administration to grant full service benefits, including seniority and promotion, to 70-year-old retired officer, while quashing the government order denying him seniority and promotion.

The applicant had challenged this government order claiming it was blatant violation of the High Court's judgment, which directed full service benefits based on his entire tenure, including time served in the Forest Department which was not complied by government.

CAT Quashes Discharge Order Against Retd J&K Govt Employee Over Alleged Misconduct For Multiple Marriages, Grants 50% Back Wage

Case-Title: Jahangir Khan vs State through commissioner/secretary to Home Dept. & Anr. , 2025

In a major relief to a retired government employee, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, has quashed a 25-year-old discharge order and directed the government to release 50% of back wages along with pensionary benefits.

'Arbitrary' : CAT Sets Aside Transfer Of IRS Officer Sameer Wankhede From Mumbai To Chennai

Case : Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede vs Union of India | OA No. 3677/2024

The Central Administrative Tribunal has set aside the transfer of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede, who courted controversy over his role investigating the Aryan Khan drug case in 2021, from Mumbai to Chennai.

The CAT Principal Bench found the transfer order issued by the Department of Revenue in May 2022 to be "arbitrary and violative of their own transfer policy." The bench of Justice Ranjit More(Chairman) and Rajinder Kashyap (Member (A)) further observed that the stand of the Department towards Wankhede "smacks their bias towards him."

Chhattisgarh High Court

State Can Interchange Reservation Among Disability Categories; Exclusion Of Visually Impaired From Commerce Faculty Posts Not Illegal : Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Saroj Kshemanidhi vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur & Ors

Case No. : WA No. 586 of 2025

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the State can interchange reservations among disability categories, so excluding visually impaired candidates for Commerce faculty posts is not illegal.

FIR Can't Be Quashed On Basis Of Compromise In Cases Involving Illegal Gratuity Demands For Pension Release : Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Khorbahara Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors

Case No. : CRMP No. 2826 of 2025

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that offences like demand for illegal gratification and misappropriation of funds amounting to moral turpitude are not private in nature but carry wider ramifications for society and cannot be quashed merely on the ground of a settlement.

Non-Payment Of Overtime Allowance Constitutes Continuing Wrong, Not Barred By Delay & Laches: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Union of India & Ors vs Raghunath

Case No. : WPS No. 2325 of 2021

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that non-payment of overtime allowance is a continuing wrong, and a fresh cause of action arises each time it is denied, therefore it overrides pleas of delay and laches.

Conditional Promotion Due To Financial Objections Serves State Interest : Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Name : Anil Sinha vs State of Chhattisgarh

Case No. : WA No. 671 of 2025

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that a promotion can be validly granted subject to conditions, such as being contingent on the outcome of pending inquiries involving serious financial objections, to protect the state's interest.

Pendency Of Criminal Case Doesn't Automatically Bar Continuation Or Conclusion Of Departmental Proceedings : Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & Ors. vs. Piyush Verma

Case No. : WA No. 688 of 2025

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar the continuation or conclusion of departmental proceedings. Further the stay on disciplinary proceedings pending a criminal trial should only be for a reasonable period, and that the prolonged duration of a criminal trial cannot be used by an employee to indefinitely delay departmental proceedings.

Dependent Can Challenge Termination & Claim Service Benefits Of Missing Employee Who Is Presumed Dead After Seven Years: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr. vs. Vikash Kothe & Ors.

Case No. : WPS No. 10215 of 2019

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that dependent wife of a missing government employee can challenge his ex-parte termination and claim the service benefits of the missing employee who is presumed dead after seven years.

Chain Pulling By Railway Employee To Help Boarding: Doesn't Constitute Misconduct To Reduce Pay : Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Austin Hyde Vs. Union of India & Others

Case No. : WPS No. 1914 of 2024

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that mere chain pulling by a Railway employee without allegation or proof of absence of reasonable and sufficient cause does not constitute misconduct under Railway service rules.

Probation Completion Doesn't Entitle Automatic Confirmation; Work & Conduct Report Can Decide Suitability If ACR Not Available: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Shailendra Soni Vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Others

Case No. : WA No. 743 of 2025

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that confirmation and promotion cannot be claimed retrospectively and deferment based on adverse Work and Conduct Report does not amount to discrimination

Employees Can Only Be Reverted To Immediate Lower Post From Which They Were Promoted, Not To Lowest Post: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : C.C.S. Rao Vs. Union of India & Others

Case No. : Writ Petition (S) No. 371 of 2025

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that an employee can only be reverted to the immediate lower post from which they were promoted and reverting them to a post lower than that is unsustainable and bad in law.

Challenge To Transfer Order Becomes Unsustainable Once Employee Joins The Transferred Post: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

Case No. : WA No. 735 of 2025

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that challenge to a transfer order is generally not maintainable after the employee has joined the transferred post.

Delayed Compassionate Appointment Defeats Its Purpose; Relief Can't Be Granted After Lapse Of 15 Years From Date Of Death: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Ku. Smriti Verma vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Case No. : WA No. 734 of 2025

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of time (15 years), as it is meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee.

Withdrawal Of VRS Permissible Before Effective Date; Consequential Benefits Barred By Estoppel If Post-Retirement Employment Availed: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : M.L. Yadav vs. Union of India & Others

Case No. : WPS No. 2078 of 2025

A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that an employee can withdraw a notice of voluntary retirement any time before it becomes effective under Rule 67(4) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, however, he is estopped from claiming consequential service benefits if he has availed post-retirement benefits.

Failure To Comply With Condition Not Specified In Recruitment Rules Or Advertisement, Can't Justify Rejection Of Candidate's Appointment: Chhattisgarh HC

Case No. : WPS No. 7925 of 2024

A single judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that failure to comply with a condition which was not stipulated in the recruitment rules or advertisement, cannot serve as a valid ground for rejecting a candidate's appointment.

Illegal Termination During Probation, Chhattisgarh HC Declines To Review Judgement

Case No. : REVP No. 274 of 2024

A single judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that a review cannot be used to reargue the case or introduce new arguments without an apparent error or new evidence. Therefore, the employee, who was illegally terminated, was allowed to continue her service.

Withholding Gratuity Of Retired Class III Employee Without Any Pre-Retirement Inquiry Deemed Illegal: Chhattisgarh HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:2151-DB | State of Chhattisgarh v. B.P. Tiwari

Chhattisgarh High Court: A division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the State cannot withhold gratuity from a retired Revenue Sub-Inspector without any prior departmental inquiry. Following State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the court ruled that recovery from Class III employees post-retirement is illegal unless proceedings were initiated before superannuation. It explained that despite the allegations of financial misappropriation, the State's failure to commence an inquiry or issue a show-cause notice before retirement, invalidated the recovery.

All Pensioners Form A Single Class, & Classification Based On Cut-Off Date For Revised Pension Benefits Is Arbitrary & Violative Of Article 14: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioners Sangh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No. : WPS No. 3602 of 2018

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that differentiating pension benefits based on the retirement date (pre-2006 vs. post-2006) violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it creates an arbitrary classification without a justifiable relation to the objective of pension revision.

In Absence Of Statutory Provision For Waiting List, Unfilled Vacancies Can't Be Claimed By Next Merit Candidate : Chhattisgarh HC

Case Name : Sailesh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Case No. : WA No. 124 of 2025

A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that in absence of statutory provision for a waiting list, the unfilled vacancy cannot be claimed by the next candidate in merit, and such vacancies must be carried forward for the future recruitment.

Dismissal Is Last Resort; Disciplinary Authorities Must Consider Lesser Penalties Before Extreme Punishment: Chhattisgarh HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:11939-DB | Ramsagar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal set aside the compulsory retirement of a police constable, finding the punishment to be disproportionate. The court held that disciplinary authorities must consider lesser punishments provided under Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations before imposing major penalties on constables. The court observed that dismissal should be last resort and should not be inflicted until all other means have failed.

Procedural Safeguards Mandatory For Stigmatic Termination Even In Contractual Employment: Chhattisgarh HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:517 | Yaad Das Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ruled that stigmatic termination of contractual employees requires adherence to procedural safeguards and natural justice principles. The court set aside the termination order of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, and ruled that allegations of misconduct necessitate a proper inquiry and fair hearing even in contractual employment.

Delhi High Court

Women's Induction Into Notified Army Corps Can't Be Numerically Restricted; Vacant Male Posts Must Be Open To Eligible Women : Delhi HC

Case Name : Shruti Vyas & Ors. Union Of India Through & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that women's induction into notified Army corps under Section 12 of the Army Act cannot be numerically restricted, as it violates gender neutrality and equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16.

Sealed Cover Procedure For Promotion Can Be Invoked Only After Charge-Sheet Or Suspension: Delhi HC

Case Name : Union Of India And Ors vs Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede

Case No. : W.P.(C) 10271/2025 & CM APPL. 42676/2025

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that sealed cover procedure cannot be invoked merely on the basis of an FIR or investigation, it applies only after issuance of a charge-sheet, criminal prosecution, or suspension.

Suspension Can't Be Extended On Ground Of Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Charge-Sheet Is Issued: Delhi HC

Case Name : Manoj Kumar M. Through A.R Ashish Dubey vs Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that suspension cannot be validly extended on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending unless a charge-sheet has actually been issued; extensions made on this erroneous ground are invalid, entitling the employee to reinstatement.

MACP Benefits Not Meant For Employees Who Have Already Received Higher Grade Pay: Delhi High Court

Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. SATYVIR SINGH & ORS & other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1314

The Delhi High Court has observed that the benefits under the MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) schemes is not meant for the Central Government employees who have already received a higher grade pay.

Chargesheet Without Prior Approval Of Disciplinary Authority Is Void Ab Initio; Can't Be Ratified Later: Delhi HC

Case Name : Union of India Through Secretary & Ors. vs. S K Jasra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1359

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that a chargesheet issued without the prior approval of the competent disciplinary authority under Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is void ab initio, non-existent in law. Further it cannot be validated by subsequent ratification.

Superior Authority Not Bound To Record Or Communicate Detailed Reasons When Rejecting Representation Against Adverse Remarks: Delhi HC

Case Name : Suresh Sankhla vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1417

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that a superior authority rejecting a representation against adverse remarks is not legally obligated to record or communicate detailed reasons for its decision

Non-Supply Of Inquiry Officer's Report Before Imposing Penalty Vitiates Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Employer Shows Valid Justification: Delhi HC

Case Name : Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Railways vs. Sh. R.K. Mittal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1480

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that non-supply of the inquiry officer's report to the delinquent employee before imposition of penalty vitiates the disciplinary proceedings unless the employer provides valid justification for such omission

Administrative Delay And Seniority: When Favouring A Junior Over Seniors Becomes Discriminatory: Delhi High Court

Case Name : Union of India & Anr. vs. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1464

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that administrative delay in the employees' joining created a shortfall in their qualifying service for promotion. Hence the employees were eligible for promotion as the delay was attributable to the administrative process of UOI and not to any fault of the officers themselves.

Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Not Rejected Within Stipulated Period; Subsequent Demand For Technical Resignation Invalid: Delhi HC

Case Name : Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1580

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that voluntary retirement is deemed automatically accepted if not expressly rejected within the stipulated period, and any subsequent demand for technical resignation cannot override a retirement that has already taken effect.

Termination Of Trainee Cadet For Isolated Act Committed Under Severe Mental Distress, Without Dishonest Intent Is Shockingly Disproportionate: Delhi HC

Case Name : Ex Flt Cdt Tarang Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1645

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that termination of a trainee cadet for an isolated act committed under severe mental distress, without dishonest intent is shockingly disproportionate and violates the principles of natural justice

Caregiver Of Disabled Dependent Entitled To Transfer Exemption; Interests Of PwD Prevail Over Administrative Convenience : Delhi HC

Case Name : Shambhu Nath Rai v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1676

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the interests of a disabled dependent prevail over administrative convenience, and caregivers of persons with disabilities are entitled to exemption from routine transfers, and reasonable accommodation is mandatory

No Employer-Employee Relationship Between Principal Employer & Workman Engaged Through Contractor : Delhi HC

Case Name : Indraprastha Gas Limited vs. Ambrish Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1748

A Delhi High Court Bench comprising Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that a workman engaged through a contractor is not an employee of the principal employer if the claimant fails to prove a direct employer-employee relationship with credible evidence.

Termination Of Employee Solely For Being HIV-Positive Is Arbitrary & Unlawful: Delhi HC

Case Name : Mr. Abc Vs. Border Security Force & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 3616/2021

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that termination of an HIV-positive employee without compliance with safeguards under the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 is unlawful.

Post-Wise Identification Within 1% Reservation For Visually Impaired Candidates (Low Vision & Blind) Is Valid For Safety Reasons : Delhi HC

Case Name: Yash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that identification of posts suitable only for low vision within the 1% reservation for visually impaired is valid, as post-wise identification within reserved vacancies based on the nature of duties and safety requirements is permissible, and blind candidates cannot claim posts not identified as suitable for them.

Disability Attributable To Military Service; Burden To Rebut Lies On Employer : Delhi HC

Case Name : W.P.(C) 6188/2025

Case No. : Union Of India And Ors vs Ex Wo Om Prakash Retd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound health at the time of entry into service; therefore, if a disability such as Primary Hypertension arises during service and was not noted at entry, it is presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service. The burden lies on the employer to rebut this presumption with clear reasons. Further the disability pension being a beneficial provision, must be interpreted liberally.

Joining Within Extended Period Entitles Employee To Seniority From Original Appointment Date: Delhi HC

Case Name : Dr. Punita K. Sodhi vs UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that if an appointee joins service within the period extended by a competent authority or by court orders, such joining is deemed to be within the stipulated time in the offer of appointment, and seniority must be reckoned from the original appointment date without any depression in seniority, along with consequential notional benefits.

Retrospective Pay Reduction Without Prior Notice And Recovery Of Excess Payments After 19 Years Is Not Permissible : Delhi High Court

Case Name : Asha Ram Nehra v. Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 234

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Manoj Jain held that reducing employee's pay retrospectively without prior notice and recovering excess payments after the period of 19 years is not permissible.

Punishment Is Not Disproportionate When Officer Displays Negligent And Irresponsible Conduct', Delhi High Court

Case Title: Babrey Singh versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 30

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Petition challenging an order of punishment awarded to the Petitioner for being irresponsible while supervising an area he was assigned. The Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate as the Petitioner had been negligent in a similar incident in the past and had shown no signs of improvement leading in another such incident where criminals could steal under the supervision and watch of the Petitioner.

Cause Of Action For Claiming Family Pension Arises Only Upon Death Of Pensioner; Speculative Claims Not Valid: Delhi HC

Title: Kumkum Dania v. Kulbhushan Dania

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 20

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that a claim for family pension requires a valid cause of action, which only arises on the death of the pensioner. The court allowed a revision petition filed against a suit seeking a mandatory injunction for the processing of family pension. It ruled that family pension under Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 is only triggered upon the pensioner's death, and speculative claims based on future uncertain events cannot constitute a valid cause of action.

Disability Attributable To Service, Authorities Cannot Contradict Medical Proof, Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension

Case Title: KULDEEP SINGH versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 39

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while allowing a Petition of the Petitioner seeking disability pension held that in absence of reasons as to how the disability arose, it could be presumed that in cases where the personnel while being appointed to the post was declared fit, the disability having arisen later could be attributable to or aggravated by service.

'APAR Can't Be Interfered With If It Complies With Guidelines And Is Not Actuated By Malice', Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ajit Kumar versus Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 43

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Writ Petition seeking to upgrade the Petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) based on being graded as 'very good' and 'outstanding' in the previous years. The Court further held that the APAR could not be interfered with as the Reporting Officer had written the same considering the attitude and dealings of the Petitioner and no guidelines or rules were violated in doing so.

Private Unaided Schools Are Subject To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 If Service Conditions Are Governed By Statutory Provisions Like DSEAR, 1973 : Delhi HC

Case Name : Jayati Mozumdar v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 266

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a private unaided school is subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if its service conditions are governed by statutory provisions like the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR).

MACP Scheme Benefits Must Be Granted Along With Pension Benefits To Employees Who Got Deemed Extension Of Service Till 60 Years: Delhi HC

Case Name : Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that MACP scheme benefits must be granted along with pension benefits to employees whose service is deemed to extend until 60 years.

Making Two Applications For One Recruitment Examination, Concealing One, Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

Case Title: PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a Petition whereby the Petitioner sought quashing of a notice by which her candidature was rejected. The Bench held that since the Petitioner had filed two application forms and had also concealed her educational qualifications before the Tribunal as well as the Court, she would not be entitled to any sort of relief.

Two Candidates Secure Same Marks, Age Determines Selection: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kalu Ram Saini versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 107

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur reiterated that in cases where two candidates secure the same marks, age should determine the selection of such candidates. The Bench allowed a Writ Petition wherein the Petitioner sought appointment based on having secured the same marks as that of another candidate who was appointed to the post.

Courts Can't Interfere In Assessment By Reporting Officer In Absence Of Bias Or Prejudice Against Employee:Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aabi Binju versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 319

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta partly allowed a writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that upheld the gradings given to the Petitioner in the ACR's by Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The Bench observed that while the Courts are required to consider and give weightage to the reports and gradings given by Officers, it is also necessary to consider whether such remarks or gradings were assigned without any bias or prejudice.

Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded to him within a period of eight weeks.

Employee's Death Attributable To Government Service Conditions; Entitled To Extraordinary Pension & Ex-Gratia Compensation : Delhi HC

Case Name : Seema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119

A division judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that deceased employee entitled to extraordinary pension and ex-gratia compensation, if death was attributable to or aggravated by government service conditions, such as exposure to hostile work environments or extreme weather conditions.

Employer Cannot Indefinitely Withhold Voluntary Retirement Without Valid Grounds: Delhi HC

Title: Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur ruled that an employer cannot indefinitely withhold voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules. The court held that pending vigilance clearance or mere potential inquiries are not valid grounds for withholding retirement. It further clarified that the employer must communicate any rejection before the notice period expires; else, it would amount to deemed acceptance.

Financial Misconduct In Government Service Warrants Dismissal; No Compassionate Allowance For Acts Of Moral Turpitude: Delhi HC

Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur upheld the dismissal of a Pay Clerk (Central Reserve Police Force) who was charged with financial misconduct and forgery. The court found that tampering with government records and misappropriation of funds constituted grave offenses that warranted his dismissal from service. The court also rejected the plea for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It held that acts involving moral turpitude disqualified the employee from such benefits.

No Liberalised Family Pension For Death During Casual Leave; Direct Causal Link With Official Duty Essential: Delhi HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:455-DB

Title: Leelam v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that death of a CRPF Sub-Inspector in a road accident during casual leave does not qualify for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation. The court held that mere classification of leave as 'on duty' under service rules is not enough unless there exists a direct causal link between the death and the performance of official duties. It ruled that for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation, the death must occur in circumstances related to the performance of official duties.

Compassionate Appointment, An Exception To Regular Recruitment, Can Be Denied If Dependents Received Sufficient Benefits : Delhi HC

Case Name : Yashvardhan v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 493

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that compassionate appointment, an exception to regular recruitment, is granted only to relieve financial hardship after a government servant's death in service. It can be denied if the family is financially stable or has received sufficient benefits under various schemes.

Delhi HC Upholds Dismissal Of CAPF Constable Who Remained Absent From Duty On Health Grounds, Says He Had Duty To Seek Leave After Surgery

Case title: Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 506

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a CAPF personnel for failing to intimate the force about his absence from duty due to his health condition.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was of the view that being in a disciplinary force, a high level of accountability was expected from the personnel and “it was incumbent upon him, post-surgery, to apprise the respondents of his medical condition and to seek leave from them.”

Adverse Grading Must Be Communicated To Employees If It Forms Basis For Denying Benefit Of NFSG

Case Title: ASITAV MOHANTY versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that if the grading in the Petitioner's ACR gave rise to a civil consequence, such grading must have been communicated to him. The Bench observed that if the Petitioner did not get an opportunity to challenge such grading, the Authority can't use such grading to deny him the grant of NFSG.

BSF Constable Losing Left Eye In Militant Encounter; Delhi High Court Rejects Union's Opposition , Grants Lump Sum Compensation

Case No. W.P.(C) 6466/2019

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur allowed a writ petition filed by a retired BSF officer. The court directed the Union of India to provide lump sum compensation to the retired BSF officer, for a disability that he suffered in the line of duty. The Court held that he was entitled to compensation under Rule 9(3) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS (EOP) Rules”), since his disability was attributable to his service. The Court also explained that any delay by the disabled in approaching the court is not a valid reason to deny disability compensation.

Courts Can't Interfere In Executive Function Of Pay Commission, Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Claiming Pay Parity

Case Title: DR. B.K. TIWARI ADVISER (NUTRITION) verus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 190

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the Petitioner who was an Advisor (Nutrition) could not be granted the same salary as that of the Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Bench held that since the posts were different, it could not be expected that the nature of duties performed by the employees could be the same and therefore, granting the petitioner the pay scale which was at par with the other posts would not be possible. The Bench further ruled that matters falling within the province of expert bodies like Pay Commission could not be interfered with by courts.

Courts Must Examine Judgments Of Acquittal Holistically To Arrive At Conclusion, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Judgment Of CAT

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul set aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the order of cancellation of the Respondent was quashed. The Bench noted that the order of cancellation was set aside on the basis of the Respondent having disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him while applying for appointment. However, the Tribunal had not examined whether it was an honourable acquittal which stood as the main issue before the Tribunal in determining if the cancellation of appointment was just and fair.

Death Gratuity Of Deceased Employee Can Be Attached In Execution Proceedings Against Legal Heirs As It Forms Part Of Estate: Delhi HC

Title: BUREAU OF OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS AND DD M/O INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CANARA BANK

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 622

Delhi High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the gratuity that remains unreleased at the time of an employee's death, becomes part of his estate. The court confirmed that this can also be attached against decrees passed against their legal heirs. The court clarified that Section 60(g) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, only protects gratuity if it is received during the employee's lifetime, and not when it passes on as inheritance.

Onus Of Proof On Review Medical Board To Prove How Disability Isn't Attributable To Or Aggravated By Service: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union Of India versus Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 424

The human body is made of skin, bone and sinew and it is not always that the body can keep pace with the spirit', said a Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul while refusing to interfere with the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal had held the respondent to be entitled to disability pension at 20%, rounded off to 50% for life in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v Ram Avtar.

Sad, Shocking State Of Affairs': Delhi High Court Orders MP Govt To Release Retiral Benefits Of Deceased IAS Officer

Case title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678

The Delhi High Court recently expressed shock at the conduct of Madhya Pradesh government in “victimising” a deceased IAS cadre officer by withholding his retiral benefits of almost 7 years.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that the officer was first victimized back in the year 2000, when he was misallocated Chhattisgarh cadre upon reorganization of MP.

Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath, Burden Shifts On Employer To Disprove Claims: Delhi HC

Title: DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL v. SANGEETA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 579

Delhi High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Manoj Jain dismissed a petition that was filed by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. The hospital was challenging a labour court award that awarded compensation to a sanitation worker. The court agreed with the Labour Court and ruled that the worker had been in continuous employment for over 240 days, and was improperly terminated. However, the court only awarded compensation instead of reinstatement.

Gauhati High Court

Can't Claim Salary Arrears For Period Of Honorary Service Prior To Prospective Regularization: Gauhati HC

Case Name : Basanta Barman v. State of Assam & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 49

A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising JusticeMichael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that an employee cannot claim arrear salary for honorary service prior to regularization if the appointment conditions were accepted and regularization order granted benefits only prospectively.

In-Charge Headmaster Should Be Appointed Based On Seniority-Cum-Efficiency : Gauhati HC

Case Name: Nozrul Islam vs. The State of Assam and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 35

The Gauhati High Court bench comprising Justice Robin Phukan held that in case of two candidates joining service on the same date, seniority must be determined based on age, with the elder candidate being treated as senior. Additionally, appointment to the post of Headmaster must be made on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency.

Assam Minorities Board Employees, Salary Paid Through Grants-In-Aid & Not from State Salary Head, Can't Be Treated As Government Servants: Gauhati HC

Case Name : Sri Ismail Ali and Ors vs The State Of Assam and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 42

A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Manish Choudhury held that employees of the Assam Minorities Development Board, whose salaries are paid from grants-in-aid and not from the regular State salary head, cannot be treated as government servants and are not entitled to pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

State Can't Arbitrarily Classify Pensioners Of Homogenous Class Based On Cut-Off Dates For Granting Revised Pension Benefits : Gauhati HC

Case Name : State Of Assam vs All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers And Employees Committee & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 41

A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that the classification among pensioners based on the date of retirement, when all retirees form a homogenous class and the pay revision is made effective from a particular date, is arbitrary and unreasonable. Further financial constraints cannot justify such discriminatory treatment.

State Information Commissioner Entitled To Same Salary, Allowances & Post-Retiral Benefits As Chief Secretary : Gauhati HC

Case Name : State Of Assam And Ors. vs Pinuel Basumatary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 43

A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that the State Information Commissioner is entitled to the same salaries, allowances, and post-retiral benefits as the Chief Secretary of the State. Further that these benefits cannot be denied on the ground of not having 10 years of qualifying service, if the individual is already drawing pension under Central Civil Services Rules.

Gauhati High Court Directs Temporary Music Teacher To Seek Governor's Discretionary Powers For Qualifying Her Service For Pension

Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:6569

Gauhati High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Robin Phukan dismissed the petition for regularisation filed by a temporary music teacher, after serving for 18 continuous years. The court held that the claim was barred by res judicata as it was already adjudicated previously. However, the court provided another remedy: to approach the Governor to invoke discretionary powers under Rules 31 and 235 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The court explained that these rules allow for consideration of pensionary benefits, even if the employee does not meet the standard eligibility criteria.

SMC Retains Disciplinary Powers Until Provincialisation Notification Is Officially Published & Communicated : Gauhati HC

Case Name: Altaf Hussain vs. The State of Assam & Ors.

Case No.: WP(C) No. 666 of 2019

The Gauhati High Court comprising of Justice Kardak Ete held that the disciplinary powers of the School Management Committee (SMC) remain valid until the date of publication and communication of the provincialisation notification, regardless of any earlier retrospective effective date.

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Order Directing State To Appoint Woman With 70% Permanent Disability As Anganwadi Worker

Case Title: Program Officer, ICDS & Anr. vs State of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 11

After examining the duties and responsibilities of the Anganwadi worker provided in a government resolution, the Gujarat High Court recently set aside a single judge's order which had directed the state to appoint a woman with 70% permanent disability as an anganwadi worker.

The court said this after noting that the role necessitates the physical capability to perform tasks which involves taking care of infants, children and mother.

Labour Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 33(C)(2) Limited to Executing Pre-existing Rights, Not Determining New Claims: Gujarat HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:2680 | Jayanti Ishwarbhai Parmar v. Sabbir Mohammed Zubair

Gujarat High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.K. Thakker upheld the Labour Court's rejection of a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that without a pre-existing right, claims for additional wages, bonus, and rent were not maintainable under this provision. It explained that Labour Courts cannot adjudicate new claims under Section 33(C)(2), as their jurisdiction is similar to that of an executing court.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Dismissal Of Border Police Constable For Absence Due To Illness Is “Harsh & Unjustified”: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Mahender Singh v/s Union of India & others

Case No.: CWP No. 1251 of 2018

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the dismissal of an Indo-Tibetan Border Police constable for alleged desertion was arbitrary and disproportionate, particularly when his absence was due to medical reasons and he had served the force with an unblemished record for over 18 years.

Junior Can't Draw Higher Pay Than Senior Under 2022 Civil Service Rules; Recovery Barred If Excess Due To Departmental Error: HP High Court

Case Name: Chaman v/s State of H.P. and ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 3646 of 2024

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that, as per the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, a government employee's pay can't exceed that of their immediate senior.

Employer Cannot Cite Delay To Deny Employee's Claim When It Failed To Respond To Representation For Years: HP High Court

Case Name: National Institute of Technology, Delhi v/s Raj Kamal Verma and others

Case No.: LPA No.05 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the National Institute of Technology, Delhi, challenging a Single Judge's order that quashed the withdrawal of a retired employee's higher grade pay and directed the institute to reconsider his claim for financial upgradation. The Court held that the delay was caused by NIT's failure to respond to the employee's representation.

Industrial Disputes Act | Govt Can't Amend Industrial Dispute Reference Without Fresh Demand: HP High Court

Case Name: Auckland House School & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others

Case No.: CWP No. 4221 of 2022

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in the absence of any demand or dispute regarding termination the government does not have any authority to refer the issue to the Labour Court.

Pharmacist's Duties Require Standing, Walking': HP High Court Dismisses Plea By 50% Locomotor-Disabled Applicant

Case Name: Sajil Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others

Case No.: CWP No.4525 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 50% locomotor-disabled candidate challenging the selection of another candidate for the post of Pharmacist.

Employee Can't Decide Location Of Anganwari Centre, Must Abide By Directions: HP High Court

Case Name: Lalita Devi v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No.6988 of 2024

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the termination of an angwari worker who repeatedly disobeyed the departmental orders to shift the Anganwari Centre from her home to the local Mahila Mandal Bhawan

University Cannot Reject Candidate's Degree For Recruitment After Accepting Him For PhD Based On Same Qualification: HP High Court

Case Name:Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr.

Case No.: CWP No.3257 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a university can't apply inconsistent standards by treating a candidate's Master's degree as an eligible subject for PhD admission but ignoring the same qualification during selection for the post of Assistant Professor.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Six-Month Extension Granted To Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena

Case Name: Atul Sharma v/s Union of India and others

Case No.: CWPIL No.26 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a six-month extension of service granted to the Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, and held that its role is not to substitute its own view for that of the Government.

Treatment By 'Tantriks' Is Not A Valid Excuse For Prolonged Absence From Training As Constable": HP High Court

Case Name: Sapna Devi v/s State of H.P. and others

Case No.: CWPOA No.5173 of 2019

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the 'treatment from Tantriks' could not be accepted as a valid or permissible ground to justify a trainee's prolonged absence from training as a constable.

Reservation Must Be Claimed At Time Of Submitting Application, Not Retrospectively: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Baljinder Kaur v/s State of H.P. and others

Case No.: CWPOA No. 1968 of 2019

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a candidate who chooses not to apply under the reserved category cannot later claim the benefit of reservation after failing in the selection process.

Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “…once the petitioner has chosen not to avail benefit of reservation available as OBC candidate, then, after participation and having remained unsuccessful, the petitioner has neither any locus nor any right to turn around and claim appointment against OBC post…”

Clubbing Stay Of Employee At Different Postings For Transfer Purposes Doesn't Violate Definition Of “Transfer” Under State Rules: HP High Court

Case Name: Monika v/s State of HP & others

Case No.: CWP No.2734 of 2024

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that clubbing the period of stay for the transfer of employees does not violate the State's Transfer Policy or the statutory rules governing transfers. In holding thus, the court overruled an earlier conflicting judgment in Anurag Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023.

Govt Employees With Political Connections Not Being Given Hard/Tribal Postings Despite State's Transfer Policy': HP High Court

Case Name: Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others

Case No.: CWP No.10255 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State to ensure that transfers are made strictly in accordance with the transfer policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The court emphasised that every government employee should be posted to a difficult area once during their service and that such postings should not be influenced by political relations.

State Cannot Transfer Police Officers Without Recommendation By Police Establishment Committee: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 105 of 2025

Reinforcing statutory safeguards for police transfers, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the transfer of a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, holding that such transfers must be made on recommendations of the police establishment committee and the State Government can't bypass this mandatory procedure.

HP HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Rules Of Judicial Promotion Exam, Says Judicial Officers Should've Known Consequences Of Participating Without Protest

Case Name: Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.

Case No.: CWP No. 1337 of 2010 & 9396 of 2013

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once Judicial officers had participated in a departmental exam for promotion, they were estopped from challenging the rules if they had accepted them when they chose to appear for the exam without any protest.

Retrospective Regularization Of Class-III Employees Counts For Pension Benefits In line with Precedents Applicable To Class-IV : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name: Raju Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Case No.: CWP No. 9708 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that a Class-III employee, whose services were regularized retrospectively, is entitled to pensionary benefits by counting the qualifying period from the date of retrospective regularization. Further the benefit of judgments granting pension to Class-IV employees can be extended to similarly placed Class-III employees.

Govt Employees Cannot Claim Assured Career Progression By Clubbing Service In Two Different Posts If Pay Scale Is Different: HP High Court

Case Name: Savita Guleria v/s H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board & another

Case No.: CWPOA No.3119 of 2019

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an employee cannot claim the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme by clubbing service in two distinct posts under different cadres when pay scale of the cadres is not in the same range.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Deduction Of Retired Judge's Pension From His Salary As Tribunal Chairman

Case Name: Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Another

Case No.: CWP No.3193 of 2019

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of pension deduction from the salary of a retired judge who was appointed as a tribunal chairman.

The court directed the State to pay arrears along with 9% interest to Justice (retd.) V.K. Sharma, former judge of the High Court, who was later appointed as Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.

CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 | Maternity Leave For Third Child Can't Be Denied If First Two Children Were Born Before Joining Service: HP High Court

Case Name: Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Case No.: CWP No. 10589 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that if two children of a government servant were born before joining government service and the third child is born after joining service, maternity leave under Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 can't be denied.

State Can't Recover Overpaid Salaries After 5 Yrs, In Absence Of Misrepresentation From Workers: HP High Court Aids Class-III Workers

Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.

Case No.: LPA No. 457 of 2025 alongwith connected matters

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 36 LPAs filed by the state, holding that the recovery of overpaid salaries after 5 years cannot be made from class-III workers, when there was no misrepresentation on the part of the workers.

Govt Employee Who Acquires Benchmark Disability During Service Can Extend Retirement Age Even If Not Appointed Under PwD Quota: HP High Court

Case Name: Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 3374 of 2024

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who acquires benchmark disability during service is entitled to the benefit of extended retirement age under the State's policy, even if he was not appointed under the handicapped quota.

Employee Cannot Seek Promotion Merely Based On Eligibility, When Dept Promotion Committee Was Not Convened Before His Retirement: HP High Court

Case Name: Nek Singh Dogra State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 5746 of 2024

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an employee cannot claim promotion merely on the ground that he was found eligible, where the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened only after his retirement.

Mere Pendency Of FIR For Minor Offences Can't Be A Ground To Deny Compassionate Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Yog Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 6233 of 2022

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the pendency of an FIR, particularly for petty offences, cannot be a valid reason to withhold compassionate appointment already approved by the competent authority.

Punishment Involving Loss Of Service Benefits Can Be Imposed Only Upon Proof Of Misconduct: HP High Court

Case Name: Hoshiar Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWPOA No. 749 of 2019

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that disciplinary punishment involving civil consequences, such as forfeiture of service benefits, must be based on clear proof of misconduct or dereliction of duty.

Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The petitioner could be visited with civil and evil consequences of punishment only on proof of any misconduct or dereliction of duty on his part, but since the punishment has been sought to be imposed without proof of any incriminating circumstance against petitioner, such a perverse action cannot be sustained.”

CCS Rules | Once Employee's Study Leave Is Sanctioned, State Can't Reduce Salary Based On Subsequent Amendment: HP High Court

Case Name: Sant Ram v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 14496 of 2024

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee was given study leave for pursuing a three-year LLB Degree course, he became entitled to full leave salary in terms of the unamended Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules.

The Court clarified that the subsequent amendment, which reduced the leave salary to 40% could not be applied retrospectively to a leave that had already been sanctioned.

Welfare State Must Be Impartial, Cannot Be "Touchy" When Employees Approach Court For Rightful Claim: HP High Court

Case Name: Susheela Rana V/s State of H.P & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 1743 of 2022

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has extended the retirement age of a government college professor, and held that a welfare State is expected to act fairly and without bias, and can't penalise an employee merely because she approached the Court for enforcement of her lawful rights.

Teachers In Himachal Cannot Claim Parity Of Pay With Punjab Teachers Merely Because HP Follows Punjab Pay Commission: HP High Court

Case Name: Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Associate & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWPOA No. 1035 of 2019 a/w CWP No. 501 of 2022

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Association and others, seeking parity in pay scales with their counterparts in Punjab, holding that the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the pay pattern of the State of Punjab in its entirety, even though it follows the Punjab Pay Commission.

HP High Court Orders Regularisation Of Class-IV Employee After 20 Years Of Service; Imposes ₹50K Cost On State For Repeated Denial Of Claim

Case Name: Sh. Balbir Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 3189 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the regularisation of a Class-IV employee after 20 years of service. The court imposed a ₹50,000 cost on the state as it repeatedly denied the claim of the employee, despite repeated directions from the court.

Promotional Benefits Can't Be Denied Post-Retirement If Juniors Were Promoted Earlier: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name : H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Roop Lal Verma & another

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that an employee cannot be denied the benefit of promotion and consequential benefits merely on the ground of retirement, if his juniors were promoted and regularized during his service tenure.

Bureaucrats Must Realise That Benefits Received By Them Are Possible Due To Freedom Fighters: HP High Court On Denial Of Pension To Widow

Case Name: Union of India v/s Mahanti Devi and another, State of H.P. v/s Mahanti Devi and another

Case No.: LPA No. 102 of 2017 a/w LPA No.96 of 2017

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh against the widow of a freedom fighter seeking pension.

Promotion Can't Be Denied When Criminal Case Is Pending Without Chargesheet Being Framed: HP High Court

Case Name: Bir Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 7099 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pendency of a criminal case, where no charge sheet has been filed, cannot be a ground to deny promotion to an employee exonerated of all charges in the departmental inquiry.

Retired Class-IV Employee Not Expected To Understand Terms Like 'Acquiescence' Or 'Delay': HP High Court Quashes Pension Rejection Order

Case Name: Jagat Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Case No.: CWP No. 7143 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the pension rejection order of a daily wage beldar worker, holding that pension cannot be denied on the ground that of delay in filing claim as a class IV cannot be expected to understand technical legal concepts like acquiescence or laches, and pension is a recurring right that cannot be defeated by delay.

Married Daughter Can't Be Excluded From Family For Purpose Of Compassionate Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 3070 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and family income has to be calculated including them as well.

Teaching Certificate Issued By School Principal Cannot Be Ignored Merely Because Appointment Was Without State's Permission: HP High Court

Case Name: Anand Swarup v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 229 of 2021

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that teaching experience certificates issued by Principals of Government Schools cannot be ignored merely on technical grounds, such as the appointment being made on Parent Teacher Association basis without government permission.

Family Pension Of Deceased Employee Can Be Shared Equally Between First & Second Wife On Basis Of Voluntary Compromise: HP HC

Case Name : Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Case No. : LPA No.330 of 2025

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that family pension of a deceased employee can be equally shared between the first and second wife through a voluntary and free-will compromise

Using MGNREGA Funds To Pay Skilled Employees Cannot Justify Denial Of Regularisation: HP High Court

Case Name: Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that MGNREGA is designed only for unskilled manual work, and cannot be used to deny regularization to skilled roles like Computer Operators.

The Court observed that the State wrongly used MGNREGA funds to pay for skilled services despite having sanctioned posts.

Conviction Of Employee Does Not Lead To Automatic Dismissal, Disciplinary Enquiry Must: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee cannot be dismissed from service solely on the ground of conviction, and that the disciplinary authority must conduct an enquiry or record reasons for not conducting an enquiry.

Pensioners Eligible For Reemployment Under Punjab Police Rules Even After Seeking Voluntary Retirement: HP High Court

Case Name: Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 8137 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to reconsider the application of a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector, holding that pensioners after voluntary retirement are eligible for reemployment under Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules.

Post-Graduation Diploma Not Equivalent To Post-Graduate Degree For Purpose Of Promotion: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Dr. Sunil Dutt V/s State of H.P. and others

Case No.: CWP No. 6750 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a postgraduate diploma cannot be treated as equivalent to a postgraduate degree for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor under the Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, 1999.

Punitive Retrenchment Without Regular Departmental Inquiry Violates Industrial Disputes Act: HP HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:3754 | State of HP v. Ramesh Chand

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel set aside the termination of a daily wage worker's services. The court noted that the termination was done under the guise of retrenchment following a preliminary inquiry. It upheld the Labour Court's finding that termination based on alleged misconduct without conducting a proper departmental inquiry was illegal. The court clarified that termination as punishment cannot be treated as simple retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.

MNREGA Workers are Not Employees Under Employees' Compensation Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Geeta Devi and Others

Case No.: FAO No. 07 of 2014

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, holding that in cases involving the death of worker employed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (“MNREGA”), 2005, compensation cannot be claimed under Employees' Compensation Act. The court determined that such workers do not fall under the definition of “employee” under Section 2(dd) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held: Once it is clear that MNREGA worker is not covered under the definition of Employee's Compensation Act, there is no right to claim compensation under the said Act for death of a person employed under MNREGA/Scheme, even if the death occurred during course of employment.

Higher Pension Cannot Be Granted Based On Duties Performed Temporarily: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Bishan Singh Chandel v/s Sh. Balwan Chand and another

Case No.: COPC No. 197 of 2022

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that pension benefits are to be granted based on the substantive post held by an employee, and not on temporary work assigned at a higher post for a brief period before retirement.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel : It may lead to a situation wherein any person on the verge of superannuation can be ordered or otherwise called upon to perform the duties of a higher post and after rendering such duties for 72 hours, 48 hours and 24 hours as the case may be and thereafter, such an incumbent shall be demanding pension on the basis of the pay of the higher post, duties whereof were being performed by him, when he superannuated. This defeats the very purpose of promotion etc.

Cannot Be Compelled To Work Against His Own Wish: Himachal Pradesh High Court Directs University To Issue NOC To Professor Seeking New Job.

Case Name: Dr. Ashok Garg v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: 10211 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla, to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a professor who had received a job offer from another institution.

Justice Sandeep Sharma: bonds executed by doctors, after their having done MBBS, medical courses, etc., to serve the State are binding and can be enforced, but since petitioner herein has agreed to pay the entire bond money i.e. Rs.60,00,000/-, he cannot be compelled to work against his wishes.

Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Repeated Disobedience And Non-Adherence To Orders, Justifiable; Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Dr. S.D. Sankhayan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWPOA No.734 of 2019

Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a professor at a government university, stating that repeated disobedience of orders from superiors can't be taken lightly, as it promotes indiscipline and disorder.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “The repeated insubordination by the non-adherence to the orders of superiors, cannot be brushed aside lightly for it will inculcate indiscipline and disorderliness in a public institution like respondent- University”.

Daily Wage Workers With 8+ Years Service Eligible For Pension Even If Total Service Falls Short Of 10 Years: HP HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:6748-DB | Bhima Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors.

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya granted pension benefits to a daily wage worker despite initial calculations showing less than the required qualifying service period. The court ruled that daily wage service, when followed by regularization, must be counted towards pension eligibility. The bench further held that workers having 8+ but less than 10 years of total service should be considered as satisfying the full 10 years of qualifying service.

Burden Lies On Employee To Justify Claim Under 'Equal Pay For Equal Work' Principle: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Surender Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWPOA No. 1720 of 2020

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when an employee seeks the benefit of principle of equal pay for equal work, it is their duty to submit relevant data to support the claim.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “In order to seek benefits of principle of equal pay for equal work again, the petitioner was required to justify his stand by producing the relevant data”

CCS Pension Rules | Withdrawal Of Premature Retirement Notice Permissible Before Effective Date: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Indira Daroch v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 3659 of 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that under Rule 43(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, an employee may withdraw a notice of premature retirement before it becomes effective, subject to the specific approval of the competent authority and upon giving valid reasons.

“Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, specifies that a government servant who has opted for voluntary retirement and has given the necessary notice to the appointing authority cannot withdraw their notice without the specific approval of that authority”.

Justice Sandeep Sharma: “Though a plea has been taken by the respondents that the premature retirement of the petitioner is governed by the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, which do not provide for withdrawal of a notice for retirement, but same also do not bar the appointing authority from reconsidering the matter on an application of employee for withdrawal of notice for premature retirement. Otherwise, this Court is of the view that rule 43(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is applicable here.”

Claim For Seniority Not Maintainable When Transfer Order Expressly Forfeits Prior Service: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Yashwant Mandhotra v/s Hon'ble High Court of HP & others

Case No.: CWP No.4241 of 2023

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a claim for seniority can't be sustained, where the terms of transfer clearly provide that previous service will not be counted for seniority purpose.

Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Once the condition provided that earlier seniority would be forfeited, the claim for seniority in future could not have been made. If such a course is provided it would amount to making ineligible's as eligible and the said post being filled up by a person who would not be eligible at the time of cut of date leading to heart burning”.

State's Delay In Creating Posts, Can't Deny Regularization Rights To Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Rajeev Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Others, Beli Ram V/s State of H.P. & Others, Arun Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others, Virender Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others, Ashok Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others

Case No.: CWPOA No. 6959 of 2020 a/w CWPOA Nos. 6963, 6966, 6967 and 6970 of 2020

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that State's delay in creating posts, can't defeat the contractual employees right to regularization once they fulfill the prescribed period of service under the State's regularization policy.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “Thus, had the posts been created within reasonable time, the petitioners would have been eligible for regularization even in terms of the communication dated 4.4.2013 as all of them have completed 6 years of service as on 31.3.2013”.

State Must Ensure Fair Promotions And Equal Treatment Of Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Dr. Swati Aggarwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors

Case No.: CWP No.5452 of 2020

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that government authorities must fill vacant posts in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules and must uphold fairness and equality in public employment.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “It is not expected from the executive of a welfare State to be partisan with one of its employees as against the other. Its role has to be of a model employer and a neutral umpire. Its legal obligation is to act in accordance with law”.

Teaching Experience Prior To Recognition Of Medical College Can't Be Counted Towards Eligibility : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name: Vijay Singh Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Case No.: LPA No. 40 of 2022 along with LPA No. 46 of 2022

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that teaching experience acquired before the formal recognition or establishment of a medical college under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, cannot be treated as valid for the purpose of determining eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, as per the statutory Recruitment Rules.

Pensionary Benefits For Contractual Period Before Regularization Must Include Annual Increments : Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case No. : CWP No. 14870/2024

A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, held that the direction to count the contractual service for pension requires the inclusion of annual increments for the relevant period in the pension calculation.

Govt Employee Who Acquires Benchmark Disability During Service Can Extend Retirement Age Even If Not Appointed Under PwD Quota: HP High Court

Case Name: Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 3374 of 2024

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who acquires benchmark disability during service is entitled to the benefit of extended retirement age under the State's policy, even if he was not appointed under the handicapped quota.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “Merely because a person suffers disability in service, offers no valid ground to discriminate him vis-a-vis the person, who was physically disabled and had been inducted into service under handicapped quota for purposes of fixing retirement age.”

State Can't Recover Overpaid Salaries After 5 Yrs, In Absence Of Misrepresentation From Workers: HP High Court Aids Class-III Workers

Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.

Case No.: LPA No. 457 of 2025 alongwith connected matters

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 36 LPAs filed by the state, holding that the recovery of overpaid salaries after 5 years cannot be made from class-III workers, when there was no misrepresentation on the part of the workers.

Upholding the finding of the Single bench, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma held that: “since the petitioners are Class-III employees and the recovery sought to be effected, pertains to the amount erroneously paid to them more than five years ago, the same is impermissible in law.”

CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 | Maternity Leave For Third Child Can't Be Denied If First Two Children Were Born Before Joining Service: HP High Court

Case Name: Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Case No.: CWP No. 10589 of 2025

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that if two children of a government servant were born before joining government service and the third child is born after joining service, maternity leave under Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 can't be denied.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “petitioner herein had given birth to two children prior to her induction in service but her prayer to grant her maternity leave, though may be qua third child of her during service, came to be made for first time. If it is so, prayer made on her behalf for grant of maternity leave deserves to be allowed.

Candidate's Eligibility Is To Be Assessed Till Final Selection Is Made, Not Just On Last Application Submission Date: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name: Ashish Kumar Rana and another v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 4240 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“Court”) bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that when a candidate applies for any post, the eligibility is assessed till the final selection date and not just on the last date of submission of application.

Valid BPL Certificate Alone Sufficient For Award Of BPL Marks; Separate Income Certificate Not Mandatory : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name: Sahil Kumar v. HPSEBL and Others

Case No.: CWPOA No. 6529 of 2020

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that a valid BPL certificate issued by the competent authority is sufficient for awarding BPL marks in recruitment; requiring a separate income certificate is unjustified.

Candidate Can't Challenge A Post As Illegal & Claim Entitlement To Appointment On Same Post : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name : Deepak Pathania v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh and Anr

Case No. : 5254 of 2013

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that a candidate cannot claim appointment to a supernumerary post, especially when such post itself is challenged by the candidate as illegal.

Medical Reimbursement Can't Be Denied On Flimsy Grounds When Claim Is Admissible Under State Policy: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Ishwar Dass v/s State of HP & ors

Case No.: CWPOA No.6723 of 2020

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a medical reimbursement claim cannot be denied on flimsy or irrelevant grounds when it was admissible under the beneficial policy of the State Government.

A Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma held as follows;

“Once a medical claim is admissible in terms of beneficial policy of the State, the same should not be denied on flimsy grounds or irrelevant factors”.

Natural Justice Must Be Followed Even For Temporary Or Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case name: Surinder Kumar vs. Central Sanskrit University

Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:15013

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma set aside the suspension order of a data entry operator. The court ruled that a proper inquiry and show cause notice is mandatory before suspending an employee for misconduct. The court further clarified that natural justice principles must be followed even for temporary or contractual employees.

Lessee Falls Within Definition Of Occupier And Is Bound To Deposit EPF Contributions: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Vinod Kumar v/s State of H.P. & others

Case No.: Cr. MMO No.211 of 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a lessee who had control over the operations of a factory fell within the definition of "occupier" under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and was therefore legally bound to deduct and deposit Employees Provident Fund contributions into the statutory fund.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Therefore, the petitioner will fall within the definition of the occupier, and he, being an occupier, was bound to deduct the contribution and deposit the same into the statutory funds. Hence, the submission that the petitioner is not liable to deposit the contribution and the proceedings were wrongly initiated against him cannot be accepted.”

State Should Not Use Temporary Appointments To Escape Regularization And Avoid Responsibilities: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Hem Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Pritam Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Bhoop Singh V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Ranjeet Singh V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Surinder Kumar V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Naresh Kumar V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Partap Singh V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Rajesh Kumar V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Case No.: CWPOA No.s 5730 of 2020 and connected matters

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State and its functionaries can't use unfair practices to deny regularization to temporary employees who have completed required service years, stating that keeping employees in temporary posts to avoid granting them the benefits of regularization is exploitative and legally unjustified.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “State or its functionaries invariably are adopting exploitative method in the field of public employment to avoid its liabilities, depriving the persons employed from their just claims and benefits by making initial appointments on temporary basis, i.e. contract, adhoc, tenure, daily-wage etc., in order to shirk from its responsibility and delay the conferment of work-charge status or extension of benefits of regularization Policy of the State by not notifying Policies in this regard in future. Present case is also an example of such practice”.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Acquittal In Criminal Case Does Not Bar Departmental Action Under CRPF Rules On Different Charges : J&K HC

Case Name : Gautam Ray vs Union of India and others

Case No. : LPA No.189/2023

A Division bench of the J&K High Court comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Judge Rajnesh Oswal held that Rule 27(ccc) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 does not apply since the departmental inquiry was based on misuse of arms, distinct from the criminal charge of murder, and acquittal in a criminal case does not bar disciplinary action. It further clarified that appointment of a Presenting Officer is not mandatory under Rule 27(c), and its absence does not vitiate the inquiry unless the Enquiry Officer acts as prosecutor.

Compassionate Appointment, Acceptance Of Lower Post Under Financial Distress Doesn't Bar claim For Higher : J&K HC

Case Name : Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Bhavtej Singh Isher

Case No. : WP(C) No. 2785/2024

A Division bench of the J&K HC comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the principle of estoppel does not apply when a compassionate appointment to a lower post is accepted under financial duress and immediately challenged by the applicant who possessed the requisite qualifications.

Ex-Servicemen Need Not Prove Entitlement To Disability Pension, Benefit Of Doubt Must Favour Them More Liberally: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Nirman Singh Jamwal & Connected MattersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reaffirmed the welfare-oriented approach governing disability pension claims, holding that a claimant is not required to prove entitlement, and that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be given to the serviceman more liberally so in field or afloat service cases.

Departmental Proceedings Need Not Be Stayed Merely Because Criminal Case Is Pending Unless Prejudice Is Shown: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Akhand Prakash Shahi v. Union of India & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that departmental proceedings cannot be halted merely because a criminal case is pending on the same allegations.

Courts Can't Interfere In Court-Martial Merely On Compassionate Grounds If Proceedings Not Irregular: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Rfn Abdul Rashid War

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that courts cannot interfere with court-martial proceedings merely on grounds of compassion or if the punishment appears excessive, provided the proceedings are conducted in strict conformity with law.

Ad Hoc Or Temporary Service Counts Toward Pension Only For Employees Governed By Pre-NPS Rules: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Adnan Wani & Others v. High Court of J&K & Ladakh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified that temporary or ad hoc service can be counted as qualifying service for pension only in cases where the employee is governed by the pension regime that existed before the New Pension Scheme (“NPS”) came into force.

Part-Time Or Guest Faculty Cannot Substitute Full-Time Assistant Professors: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: University of Kashmir & Others v. Saba Manzoor & Others; connected appeals

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that part-time or guest faculty cannot be used as substitutes for whole-time Assistant Professors required to teach multiple subjects in the Faculty of Law.

Denying Regularisation To Daily Wager After Extracting Work For Over 34 Years Is Illegal, Inequitable: J&K&L High Court

Case-Title: UT of J&K vs Som Raj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 322

The Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court dismissed the Union Territory's challenge to the regularisation of a daily wager, holding that denial of regularisation after extracting work for more than three decades would be illegal, inequitable, and contrary to the welfare obligations of the State.

Pension | Employees Of Different Institutions Cannot Claim Parity In Service Merely Because Both Are Funded From Same Source: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Abdul Majeed Parray & Ors Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 320

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that employees of two different institutions cannot claim parity in service conditions merely because both are funded from the same source.

Justice Sanjay Dhar made this observation while dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by serving and retired employees of J&K Sainik School who had sought extension of pensionary benefits on par with government employees and employees of other Sainik Schools across the country.

Umadevi Judgment Not A Shield For Perpetual Temporary Employment: J&K HC

Case Name : U. T. of J&K and others vs. Kashmir Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 317

A Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that daily rated worker engaged prior to 31-03-1994 and continuously employed for decades cannot be denied regularization under SRO-64 on the pretext of being a casual labourer. Further, the Umadevi Judgment cannot be invoked to justify perpetual temporary employment for permanent work.

Fought For Justice, Got Justice, Then Lost Justice': J&K&L High Court Restores Seniority Of 1979 Police Recruits After Nearly Four Decades

Case Title: Pyare Lal Bhat & Ors Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has allowed a long-pending Letters Patent Appeal filed by a batch of 1979 direct recruit Sub Inspectors of the Jammu and Kashmir Police, sharply criticising the manner in which binding judicial verdicts were repeatedly diluted through subsequent litigation and administrative actions.

Principle Of 'No Work, No Pay' Inapplicable When Termination Is Illegal: J&K High Court Grants Back Wages To Ex-Bus Conductor

Case-Title: J&K Road Transport Corporation vs Shareefa & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 276

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has partially upheld a writ court's order directing reinstatement of a conductor wrongfully terminated by the State Road Transport Corporation (SRTC), holding that while the employee is entitled to reinstatement, full back wages cannot be awarded in the absence of pleadings regarding gainful employment.

Errors In Administrative Judgement Should Not Attract Severest Punishments': J&K&L HC Quashes Retrospective Dismissal Of Retired Employee

Case-Title: Naseer Ahmad Sheikh vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 290

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court took strong exception to the retrospective dismissal of the officer, passed after his retirement and noted that the punishment imposed was not commensurate with the nature of the alleged lapses.

Recording Adverse ACR Against Govt Employee During COVID Medical Leave Is Arbitrary: J&KL High Court Quashes Performance Report

Case-Title: Baseer -Ul- Haq Hussami Vs UT OF J&K & Ors , 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 299

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed a “below average” Annual Confidential Report (ACR) recorded against a government employee for the year 2020, observing that the entry was made while the petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave due to COVID-19.

Dept Proceedings Against Retired Govt Employee Permissible To Determine Loss To Exchequer, Not To Impose Penalty: J&K&L High Court

Case -Title: UT of J&K vs Aftab Ahmad Malik, 2025

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court clarified that the Government can continue departmental proceedings against a retired employee, but only for the limited purpose of assessing losses caused to the State exchequer due to negligence or fraudulent acts, and not for imposing penalties under service rules.

Statutory Rules Cannot Be Overridden By Recommendations: J&K&L High Court Denies Plea By Co-operative Employees For Enhanced Retirement Age

Case Title: Mohammad Yousuf Mir Vs UT of J&K

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the retirement age of employees of Cooperative Societies remains 58 years under SRO 233 of 1988, and cannot be enhanced to 60 years merely on the strength of draft proposals or departmental recommendations.

Suspension Period Spent In Gainful Private Practice To Be Treated As Leave; Employee Not Entitled To Salary : J&K HC

Case Name : Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors vs Dr. Bilal Ahmad

Case No. : WP(C) No. 353/2024

A Division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that suspension period during which the employee gainfully engaged in private practice should be treated as leave, and employee is not eligible for salary during such period.

Engagement On Academic Arrangement Basis Is A Distinct Class, Not Eligible For Regularization Under J&K Civil Services Act: High Court

Cause-Title: Syed Tariq Ahmad & ors vs. UT of J&K and ors and Connected Petitions.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that lecturers engaged on academic arrangement basis constitute a separate class distinct from those appointed on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis against clear vacancies, and are therefore not eligible for regularization under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.

Disability Pension, PCDA(P) Can't Overrule Medical Board Findings: J&K HC

Case Name : Union of India & Ors vs Ex Naik (TS) Shukar Singh

Case No. : WP(C) No.1633/2024

A Division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA) (Pension) has no jurisdiction to alter or reduce the disability percentage assessed by a duly constituted Medical Board, only a higher/review medical board can reassess it, and the benefit of rounding off of disability pension applies even in cases of normal retirement where disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service.

Retirement Age Of Cooperative Society Employees Can Be Increased Only Through Statutory Amendment, Not Departmental Proposals: J&K HC

Case Name : Mohammad Yousuf Mir vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors

Case No. : LPA No. 4/2023 in WP (C) No. 747/2021

A Division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that retirement age of employees of Cooperative Societies remains 58 years as per SRO 233 of 1988, and it can only be altered through formal amendment of statutory rules, not by departmental recommendations, proposals, or draft amendments.

Unauthorized Absence In Uniformed Force Beyond 60 Days Constitutes Desertion & Justifies Dismissal From Service: Jammu &Kashmir High Court

Case Name : Nasir Ahmad Parray vs Union of India & Ors

Case No. : LPA No. 300/2019

A Division bench of the Jammu &Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that a member of a disciplined force who fails to report for duty after expiry of leave and remains absent for a prolonged period without sufficient cause can be declared a “deserter,” and dismissal from service under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 is justified.

Delay In Deciding Voluntary Retirement Request Can't Deprive Employee Of Pensionary Benefits: J&K HC

Case Name : UT of J & K & Ors vs Anil Sharma

Case No. : WP (C) No. 2246/2025

A Division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that non-decision on Voluntary Retirement request cannot deprive an employee of pensionary benefits post-retirement.

Disciplinary Proceedings Post-Retirement Invalid; Pension Recovery Permissible Only If Charge Of Loss By Fraud Is Proved During Service: J&K HC

Case Name : Sudershan Mehta vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Case No. : WP(C) No.2027/2024

A Division bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a government servant after retirement, and recovery from pension is permissible only when a specific charge of financial loss to the Government due to negligence or fraud is duly framed and proved.

No Salary Payable For Period Of Unauthorized Absence During Higher Studies Without Official Deputation: J&K HC

Case Name : Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Dr. Anju Kumari & Another

Case No. : WP(C) No.2399/2025

A Division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that Post-graduate studies pursued without official deputation or permission do not entitle government employees to salary under Article 44-A of J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956.

Payment Of Wages Act Operates Independently Of Limitation Act, Mandatory Preconditions For Appeals Must Be Fulfilled: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Barket Ali Vs Divisional Manager SFC Division Bhaderwah

Reinforcing the autonomy of special legislations, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, has ruled that the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, as the latter is a self-contained legislation that not only lays down the manner and mode of appeal but also the conditions precedent for its maintainability.

No Employee, Including Retirees, Has Vested Right To Perpetually Reap Benefits Of Employer's Mistake Of Erroneous Payments: J&K HC

Case Name : Union Territory of J&K & Ors. vs. Abdul Rashid Malik & Ors.

Case No. : WP(C) No. 1201/2025

A Division bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that recovery of erroneously paid benefits from retired low-level employees is impermissible, but correction of future pay/pension is allowed. Further that no employee, including one who has superannuated, possesses a vested right to perpetually reap the benefits of a mistake committed by the employer.

Piece-Rate Workers Not Entitled To Pension Benefits Granted To Regular Staff: J&K High Court

Case No.: WP(C) No.642/2022 (Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors.)

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed petitions seeking pensionary benefits filed by former piece-rate workers of J&K Handicrafts Corporation. The court distinguished between piece-rate workers and regular employees, and held that workers paid based on daily output cannot claim parity with regular government employees for pension benefits.

Higher Salary Mistakenly Credited To Employee Cannot Be Recovered, But Employee Cannot Seek Continuation Of Erroneous Benefits: J&K High Court

Case-Title:- Sita Ram vs UT if J&K &Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 156

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that the claim of the petitioners to avail the benefit of a mistake of fact, despite the mistake having been detected and corrected, is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted.

The petitioners had argued that higher pay scale came to be granted to them without fraud or misrepresentation and therefore the respondent could not refix the salary in lower pay-scale or recover the same.

Accepting Lower Post Under Compulsion Doesn't Bar Legitimate Claims Due To Procedural Lapses In Selection Process: J&K High Court

Case-Title: IRSHAD RASHID SHAH vs UT OF J&K & OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 168

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held the petitioner's acceptance of the Constable post as against claim made for Sub-inspector on compassionate grounds did not negate his original claim because it was made after a prolonged struggle and under duress.

The petitioner whose father had died in counter-insurgency applied to be appointed as Sub-inspector under SRO 43 on compassionate grounds claiming that his case was not referred to General Administrative Department who was the competent authority to accept such plea.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Seniority Benefits For Rehbar-E-Taleem Teachers Prior To Regularization Of Services

Case-Title: Anwar Hussain Wani & Ors vs State of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 206

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that seniority of ReT (Rehbar-E-Taleem) teachers must be reckoned from the date of appointment as a general line teacher and the pre-regularization period of five years will not be included for the purpose of fixing seniority.

Compulsory Retirement Valid For Leaving Battalion Without Informing About New Address, Employer Cannot Launch 'Manhunt' For Employee: J&K HC

Case-Title: HC/GD Harish Chander vs UOI and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 139

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement from the service imposed upon the petitioner for his continuous absence from the battalion without permission for overstaying his leave for the period of 326 days.

The petitioner, a CRPF constable, contended that the order issued by respondent No.3 was based upon an ex parte inquiry and that the petitioner has not been provided an opportunity of hearing and whatever notice was sent by the authority could not be received as he had changed his residential address owing to his ailment.

Indian Army's Core Function Of National Security Is A Sovereign Function, Cannot Be Categorized As 'Industry': J&K High Court

Case-Title: General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Army does not fall within the definition of an 'Industry' and thus, the Labour Court, which had ruled in favor of the writ petitioners serving as porters in the Indian Army, ordered their reinstatement with full back wages, had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

The court said that it was not the case of the writ petitioners that their role as non-combat personnel providing porter services was severable from sovereign functions, to be classified as an industry.

Corporation Is An Independent Entity, Internal Service Rules Will Prevail Over Govt Office Memoranda: J&K High Court

Case-Title Rajesh Singh vs National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the writ Petition holding that Government office Memoranda will not prevail over the internal service rules relating to promotion unless these rules are specifically challenged before the court. It was held that an employee facing criminal charges would be barred from being considered for promotion until completely exonerated as per the said internal rules.

Officer's Inability To Stop Assailant Despite Being Armed Showed Incapability To Continue As Member Of CRPF: J&K HC Upholds Dismissal Order

Case-Title: Ex-CT/GD Om Prakash vs Union of India & ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

The J&K High Court has ruled that an army personnel's negligence in discharging their duties justifies the dismissal from the services, even if they are in the initial years of their service. It also held that the High Court cannot interfere with conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer under departmental proceedings unless the same is found to be fanciful and perverse.

The court observed that the Appellant's inability to stop or neutralize the assailant, despite being armed and in a position to do so, reveals that he was incapable of continuing as a member of the Armed Force in the Union, as he lacked the requisite resolve to act with decisiveness when faced with such adversity.

Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC

Case Title:Rattan Lal v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 120

High Court of J&K: A single judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the compulsory retirement of a BSF constable under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The court found the retirement to be justified based on the constable's repeated prior disciplinary infractions. The court also held that the BSF had followed all due process, including issuing a show-cause notice, and held that maintaining discipline in a paramilitary force was paramount. Judicial review, it clarified, does not extend to reassessing the sufficiency of material relied upon by the competent authority unless the decision is perverse or arbitrary.

Withdrawal Of Earlier Notification For Departmental Promotion & Issuing Fresh Notification Under Amended Rules Is Not Mala Fide: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Sanjeev Gupta vs Central University of Jammu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 213

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the university can issue a fresh notification for initiating the departmental promotions under amended rules pending the finalization of the process of promotion issued under the previous rules.

The above orders came while the court was hearing the challenge by the petitioner against the fresh notification issued by the respondent University requiring the departmental promotion, in which promotional test was already conducted, to be initiated under amended rules.

Policy Decision Restricting Pension Benefits To Employees Retiring After Particular Cut-Off Period Not Illegal: J&K High Court

Case-title: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs KHURSHEED AHMAD NAQEEB

Citation: 2025, Livelaw (JKL) 114

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that The employer is well within its rights to validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension scheme or for discontinuing an existing scheme and same is not violative of Article 14.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Justice Puneet Gupta said that government took a policy decision to introduce new pension scheme wherein the benefits was given to those who retired after 2014 and those who retired before the date and those who retired afterwards form two separate classes

SRO Benefits Wrongfully Granted To Employee Cannot Be Recovered By Withdrawing Amounts From Salary: J&K High Court

Case-Title: UT of J&K through its Commissioner vs Kashmiri Lal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 136

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if benefits under Self-Regulatory Organisation (SRO) scheme is wrongfully granted to the employee by the department without any fraud or misrepresentation played by the employee, the department is not at liberty to recover the same by effecting it from the salary of the employee or pensioner at any given point of time.

The Appellant department had discovered after going through the service book after the Respondent's retirement that he was incorrectly granted benefits under SRO 149 of 1973 that had been repealed and started to recover the same from his salary.

Two Decades Of Continuous Services Doesn't Give Right Of Regularization Unless Formal Recruitment Process Is Followed: J&K High Court

Case-title: Farooq Ahmad Janda vs Union Of India, 2025

Citation: Livelaw JKL) 77

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that serving in a department for more than 20 years without following the due process of recruitment does not give the right to said employee to seek the regularization of services.

Recovery Of Excess Pension Due To Administrative Error Cannot Be Enforced Against Elderly Pensioners Or Widows: J&KHigh Court

Case-title: Smt. Sudershan Sharma vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 97

Giving relief to an elderly woman pensioner in whose account an excess amount of pension was credited, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if, due to an administrative error, an excess amount is credited to the accounts of elderly pensioners or widows which is withdrawn, the same cannot be recovered.

The court noted that the appellant is an elderly lady, 77 years of age, and a renal patient; as such, any harsh order of recovery in such extreme hardship would worsen her condition. Case-title: Smt. Sudershan Sharma vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 97

Employer Can Accept Resignation Letter On Same Day, Need Not Wait For Expiry Of Notice Period: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Bilal Ahmad Yatoo vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld the dismissal of a police constable holding that there was no bar in accepting the resignation on the same day on which it was tendered, rather than treat it as 'intention to resign' and wait for a two-month notice period to expire before accepting it.

Cannot Withhold Retirement Benefits For Crime Branch Clearance: J&K HC

Case Title: Prem Kumar Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 236

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh: A single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that retirement benefits could not be withheld merely on the grounds of pending clearance from crime branch, especially when the FIR has been closed as 'not proved'. The court ruled that even when if the FIR investigations were pending, it does not amount to 'judicial proceedings', and thus, cannot be used to deny retirement benefits. Thus, the court directed the employer to provide all retirement benefits, along with interest.

Recording Adverse ACR Against Govt Employee During COVID Medical Leave Is Arbitrary: J&KL High Court Quashes Performance Report

Case-Title: Baseer -Ul- Haq Hussami Vs UT OF J&K & Ors , 2025

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed a “below average” Annual Confidential Report (ACR) recorded against a government employee for the year 2020, observing that the entry was made while the petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave due to COVID-19.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that such an adverse remark, made without any observable basis of work performance or misconduct during the reporting period, is not only legally untenable but also violative of principles of natural justice and administrative propriety.

Jharkhand High Court

Appearance Of Workman Through Advocate Amounts To Deemed Consent For Employer's Legal Representation: Jharkhand High Court

In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Jay Prakash Singh, a single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that 'consent' under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA) need not be explicit and that implicit consent of the other parties is sufficient.

Ex-Servicemen In Special Auxiliary Police Force Cannot Claim Superannuation As Regular Govt Servant: Jharkhand High Court

Cause Title: Francis Kujur v. State of Jharkhand

Case Number: W.P. (S) No. 3008 of 2025

The Jharkhand High Court recently held that ex-servicemen engaged on a contractual basis under the State's Special Auxiliary Police Force (SAP) battalions cannot claim continuation of service beyond the tenure prescribed under the governing scheme.

Temporary Employees Rendering Over 15 Years Of Continuous Service On Sanctioned Posts; Entitled To Pension Under Bihar Pension Rules : Jharkhand HC

Case Name : Surendra Nath Mahto & Ors vs State of Jharkhand & Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 62

The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that temporary employees who have rendered over 15 years of continuous service on sanctioned posts with regular pay are entitled to pension under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (as adopted by State of Jharkhand).

Prematurely Retiring An Employee During Pending Enquiry Without Due Process Amounts To Misconduct : Jharkhand HC

Case Name : Pramod Kumar Sinha v. Chairman, Coal India Ltd. & Ors

LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that prematurely retiring an employee during pendency of departmental enquiry on disputed records, without following due process, amounts to misconduct by the officers as it prejudices the employer's interest.

Pendency Of Criminal Proceedings Without Conviction Can't Be Ground To Withhold Statutory Rights Like Pension & Gratuity : Jharkhand HC

Case Name : Ranchi University vs Shanti Devi & Ors

Case No. : L.P.A. No. 482 of 2024

A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings without conviction cannot be a ground to withhold pension, gratuity, or leave encashment as they are statutory rights of the employee.

Correction Of Date Of Birth In Service Records Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right At Fag End Of Service : Jharkhand HC

Case Name : Uma Ram vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors

A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that correction of date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right, even if supported by genuine documents like a Matriculation Certificate, particularly when such request is made after an inordinate delay (over two decades) and near the date of retirement.

Old Pension Scheme As Per Job Advt Can't Be Denied Because Employees Joined After Cut Off Date; Jharkhand HC

Case Name : Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad & Anr. Vs. Dr. Praveen Kumar

Case No. : L.P.A. No. 61 of 2025

A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that appointees selected pursuant to advertisements issued prior to 01.01.2004 are entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme, even if their actual appointment or joining occurred after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme.

Removal From Service For Procedural Lapses, Disinterest & Harassment of Subordinates, Disproportionate To Misconduct: Jharkhand HC

Case Name : The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Meena Kumari Rai

Case No. : L.P.A.No.134 of 2025

A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai held that the capital punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to charges relating to procedural lapses, casualness in duty, lack of interest in work and harassment of subordinates

Monetary Compensation Must Be Granted From Date Of Application When Compassionate Appointment Is Denied: Jharkhand HC

Case Name : Central Coalfields Limited & Ors. Vs. Sunita Devi

Case No. : L.P.A. No. 42 of 2025

A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that if compassionate appointment is denied then employer must grant the monetary compensation from date of application for the compassionate appointment.

Entitlement To ACP/MACP Benefits Is Based On Completion Of Qualifying Service, Not On Additional Qualifications: Jharkhand HC

Case Title : Rabindra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 41

The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen held that under the ACP/MACP Schemes, financial upgradation must be granted on completion of regular service without insisting on additional qualifications. Further the subsequent government resolutions cannot retrospectively affect accrued service benefits.

Temporary Employees Rendering Over 15 Years Of Continuous Service On Sanctioned Posts; Entitled To Pension Under Bihar Pension Rules : Jharkhand HC

Case Name : Surendra Nath Mahto & Ors vs State of Jharkhand & Ors

Case No. : W.P.(S) No. 136 of 2020

The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that temporary employees who have rendered over 15 years of continuous service on sanctioned posts with regular pay are entitled to pension under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (as adopted by State of Jharkhand).

Policy Changes Before Appointment Can't Be Challenged As No Vested Right Exists Prior To Issuance Of Appointment Letter : Jharkhand HC

Case Name: Faiyaz Ahmad & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Case No.: Civil Review No. 107 of 2024

A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava held that a candidate cannot challenge a policy change made prior to the appointment as no vested or accrued right arises from an advertised pay scale unless an appointment letter is issued.

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court Quashes Overnight Removal Of Govt Pleader; Says 'Doctrine Of Pleasure' Not A Licence For Arbitrary Action

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

Case Title: Sunil AND State of Karnataka & Others

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a notification cancelling the appointment of an Additional District Government Pleader within 24-hours of his appointment and appointing another advocate in his place.

Toil Without Wages Strikes At Heart Of Human Dignity”: Karnataka High Court Directs Release Of 19 Months' Pending Salary To Govt Teachers

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

Case Title: ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA KANAWADE & Others AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others

In a case concerning government teachers who had not been paid their salaries for 19 months, the Karnataka High Court recently said, “To force these teachers or indeed any employee, to toil without wages strikes at the very heart of human dignity and stands in stark violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India, which proscribes begar in all its forms.”

Employees Of Karnataka Media Academy And State Temperance Board Are Not Govt Servants, Can't Claim Pension: High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 420

Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND YALLAGAIAH G & Others

The Karnataka High Court has held that employees of the Karnataka Media Academy or the Karnataka State Temperance Board are not eligible to pension as Government servants, noting that there was no provision making their service pensionable under relevant rules.

Guest Lecturer Making Press Statement In 'Public Interest' Not Misconduct: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Termination Order

Case Title: Dr Manjunath R AND The Secretary To Government of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15289 OF 2025

The Karnataka High Court set aside the of termination of a guest lecturer appointed to Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in Bengaluru North University Kolar, after he made a statement in the press on grants sanctioned to Kolar District claiming that these were not properly utilised by the officials.

Conviction For 'Petty Offence' Not Enough: Karnataka High Court Gives Relief To Peon Whose Appointment Offer Was Cancelled By Sessions Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

Case Title: Chief Administrative Officer & ANR AND Mallappa Basappa Sajjan

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order which had set aside a communication issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kollar cancelling the offer of appointment to the post of 'Peon' in the Judicial Department of Kolar District.

Pre-University Education Rules | Denying Compassionate Appointment For Want Of Vacancy In Deceased's Institution Illegal: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264

Case Title: Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others

The Karnataka High Court set aside an order passed by Pre-University Education department which had rejected a compassionate appointment plea filed by the son of a deceased employee of a Pre-University solely on the ground that there was no vacancy in the institution where the deceased was working

Compassionate Appointment Applications Must Be Decided Within 90-Days: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel

The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities concerned to decide applications received for Compassionate Appointment within a maximum period of 90 days, from date of receipt of the application.

A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz And Justice K S Hemalekha said, “Compassionate appointment matters being a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families, the State bears a high duty of procedural fairness."

Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Subsequent Reference To Labour Court After Either Party Disputes Earlier Settlement

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

Case Title: Ramamurthy C K & Others AND Bosch Limited & Others

The Karnataka High Court has held that if a dispute is raised questioning the validity of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, before a conciliation officer, the appropriate Government is required to assign reasons for referring it to adjudication.

Labour Engaged Through Contractor For Maintenance, Repair Of Factory Premises Qualify As 'Employee' Under ESI Act: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

Case Title: Assistant Director, ESI Corporation AND M/s. Sansera Engineering P Ltd

The Karnataka High Court has held that labourers engaged through contractors for construction and repair works within a factory premises are treated as 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act.

Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal Of BMTC Bus Driver For Securing Employment Based On Fake Educational Documents

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

Case Title: Malurappa AND Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which dismissed a plea by an employee of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) accused of securing an appointment on the basis of a false certificate regarding his educational qualifications.

Govt Employee's Brother Eligible For Compassionate Appointment If Employee's Spouse Predeceases Him, Without Leaving Children: Karnataka HC

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

Case Title: Mantavva & ANR AND The Divisional Controller.

The Karnataka High Court has said that if the spouse of an employee has predeceased the employee and there are no children, the mere marriage of the deceased employee cannot be a ground to reject an application for compassionate appointment to the brother of the deceased.

Govt Employee's Transfer Is Not Vitiated Merely Due To Being Made Upon Recommendation By MLA: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: S Venkateshappa AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3612/2025

The Karnataka High Court has said that the transfer of a government employee would not be vitiated for being made solely at the instance or recommendation of a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA).

A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice K V Aravind said thus while dismissing the petition filed by S Venkateshappa, a Tashildar, challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting his prayer to quash the impugned order of transfer and posting of respondent No.4 in his place under notification dated 31.12.2024.

Karnataka High Court Upholds Lokayukta Enquiry Against Asst Public Prosecutor Accused Of Malpractices Prior To Appointment

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298

Case Title: Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against an order of the State Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his plea challenging the entrustment of an enquiry to the Lokayukta against him for alleged actions done prior to his appointment.

Pensionary Benefits Can't Be Withheld Indefinitely On Account Of Possible Disciplinary Proceedings In Future: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

Case Title: Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited AND Malathi B & ANR

The Karnataka High Court has said that pensionary and retiral benefits of a former employee cannot be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings on a future date.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held thus while dismissing appeal by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited against single judge's order directing the company to pay all retirement benefits–death-cum-retirement gratuity, entitlement for leave encashment benefit and other pensionary benefits along with interest from the date of retirement to one Malathi B.

Karnataka High Court Orders Jet Airways To Pay ₹13 Lakh In Back Wages To Dismissed Employee Despite Liquidation

Case Title: M/S JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) PVT LTD V SRI PRASHANT RAO

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15526 OF 2017 (L-RES)

The Karnataka High Court recently directed liquidation bound Jet Airways to pay back wages of ₹13,00,000, along with accrued interest, to a former employee who was dismissed from its services.

Filing False Case Of Assault Against Senior Manager By Employee Amounts To Misconduct: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 339

Case Title: G Mahesh AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TEKNIC EUCHNER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD

The Karnataka High Court has confirmed an order passed by the labour court dismissing an employee of a private company on the grounds of misconduct after it was proved that he lodged a false complaint of assault against the senior manager of the company.

CCS Rules | Disciplinary Authority Need Not Hear Officer While Disagreeing With Enquiry Report Which Exonerated Him: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

Case Title: M/S KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD AND T Nalini & ANR

The Karnataka High Court has said that Rule 11A(2) of State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules does not contemplate giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer before Disciplinary authority recording the point of disagreement on the findings made by the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge.

Denial Of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Amounts To “Economic Excommunication”: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

Case Title: BASAVARAJ S/O. PUNDALIKAPPA AND The State of Karnataka & Others

The Karnataka High Court has held that subsistence allowance is mandatory in any circumstance of suspension of an employee, and “he cannot be denied his statutory subsistence allowance.”

Justice M. Nagaprasanna said this while allowing a petition by Basavaraj Pundalikappa and quashing the suspension order dated 22-07-2025. The petitioner joined as an attender in Bagalkote Municipal Council in 1985 and has completed 41 years of service.

Company's Order Reversing Pay Hike Upsets Employee's Financial Planning: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside HAL Circular

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 31

Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild AND Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd & ANR

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a circular issued by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), whereby it sought to re-fix the pay of Officers, which came to be increased, in the year 2017.

A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by 'Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild' and set aside the Circular dated 24.07.2021, issued by the employer. It also clarified that the pay fixation (presently being paid) would continue to hold the field.

Employees Can Be Transferred On Administrative Exigency But Not In Violation Of Statue Or Operative Guidelines: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

Case Title: Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar AND The Chief Personnel Manager & ANR

The Karnataka High Court has said that administrative exigency can be a reason for a Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee from one place to another, but it cannot be done in violation of the statute or operative guidelines of service.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar questioning the endorsement issued to him by which he was transferred from Vigilance Department of the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation to the post of Depot Manager.

Penalty Of Withholding 100% Pension Gratuity By Disciplinary Authority Is Not Understandable: Karnataka High Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

Case Title: Hanumanth N Karkun AND Honourable Minister of Finance & Others

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a 73-year-old, cancer patient and former employee of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, by setting aside an order of the authorities withholding 100 percent of gratuity and pension due to him.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Hanumanth N Karkun and quashed the order passed by the authorities and directed the release of the entire pension that was withheld and the gratuity that was forfeited to its full, to be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks.

Leave Encashment Is A Constitutional Property Right; It Cannot Be Denied Without Specific Statutory Authority: Karnataka HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:3366 | G. Linganagouda v. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank

Karnataka High Court: A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna declared that an employee dismissed from service is entitled to leave encashment, as it constitutes a property right under Article 300A of the Constitution. The court held that the Karnataka Gramina Bank refusing to pay leave encashment to a dismissed employee was illegal. It emphasized that once earned, terminal benefits including leave encashment become the employee's property. Thus, they cannot be withheld arbitrarily. Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the bank to encash the petitioner's privilege leave.

Daily Wage Employee Continuously Serving For Over 10 Years In Sanctioned Post Is Entitled To Regularization, Procedural Irregularities Can't Be Grounds For Denial: Karnataka HC

Case Name : P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors

Case No. : WP 6238/2020

A Division bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar held that a daily wage employee continuously serving for over ten years in a sanctioned post is entitled to regularization, and procedural irregularities or delay cannot be sole grounds for denial

Flawless Communication' Is Key: Karnataka HC Rejects Plea Of Man With Speech Disorder Denied Appointment As Asst Railway Loco Pilot

Case Title: Rishi Kumar AND Union of India & Others

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petition filed by a Railway Job Aspirant who was not appointed to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) as he was found to be stuttering speech by the Railway Recruitment Board which termed it as a speech disorder.

A division bench of Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice T M Nadaf dismissed the petition filed by one Rishi Kumar against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting his application seeking to quash the order passed by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) on the ground that the candidate suffered from speech disorder.

"Worked For 34 Yrs, State Wants To Play With His Life": Karnataka HC Directs Release Of Terminal Benefits For 70-Yr-Old Retired Teacher

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 103

Case Title: M.A.DHAVALESHWAR AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a retired school teacher who has been fighting for his pension for the last 6 years. The court has directed the State Government and Rani Channamma University to release complete Death-cum-retirement benefits and encashment of privilege leave, including arrears of pension as claimed, within four weeks.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M.A Dhavaleshwar and said, “It is un-understandable as to why the petitioner, despite working for 34 years, has not been paid complete pension as also leave encashment and gratuity amounts. The State wants to play with the life of the petitioner.”

Karnataka High Court Directs Regularisation Of Mangalore Workers Serving Through Outsource Agency Subsequent To Order Abolishing Contract Labour

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

Case Title: Bhagwan Das & Others AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of 16 contract workers employed in the water supply department of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike, and it has directed the corporation to regularise their services.

Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by Bhagwan Das and others and said “The order of regularization is to be passed within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

Gratuity Cannot Be Forfeited For Employee Who Was Dismissed For Allegedly Misappropriating Funds Without Proper Proceedings: Karnataka HC

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 19.

Case Title: Central Warehousing Corporation AND G C Bhat & ANR

The Karnataka High Court has held that in case no proceedings have been initiated against a delinquent employee for recovery of the alleged losses caused to the public institution due to their misappropriation, the question of the employer retaining the gratuity amount of the dismissed employee and forfeiting the same, would not arise.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Central Warehousing Corporation, which had challenged the order of the Controlling Authority. The authority while allowing the application filed by G C Bhat had directed the corporation to pay him a gratuity amount of Rs.7,88,165 with 10% interest from 12.12.2013, till the date of actual payment.

Conviction For 'Petty Offence' Not Enough: Karnataka High Court Gives Relief To Peon Whose Appointment Offer Was Cancelled By Sessions Court

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

Case Title: Chief Administrative Officer & ANR AND Mallappa Basappa Sajjan

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order which had set aside a communication issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kollar cancelling the offer of appointment to the post of 'Peon' in the Judicial Department of Kolar District.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the appeal filed by the Chief Administrative Office, of the Principal District and Sessions court, and said: “We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that conviction for a petty offence would not be a ground for cancelling the offer of appointment. It is also well-settled that non-disclosure of a conviction for petty offence, does not necessarily provide sufficient ground for cancellation of an appointment.”

Govt Can't Pass Interim Order Directing Payment Of Wages To Workmen Without Hearing Management, Workers Union: Karnataka HC

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16742 OF 2024

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the government cannot pass an interim order directing payment of wages in favour of workmen of a company without hearing the company management and the workers union.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held thus while allowing a petition filed by the Management of Mahindra Aerostructures Private Limited, challenging a June 11, 2024 order passed by Principal Secretary/Deputy Special Officer, Child Labour Cell To Department Of Labour, directing payment of Rs.6,000 per month as interim wages in favour of the workman of the petitioner/Management.

Pre-University Education Rules | Denying Compassionate Appointment For Want Of Vacancy In Deceased's Institution Illegal: Karnataka High Court

Case Name- Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264

The Karnataka High Court set aside an order passed by Pre-University Education department which had rejected a compassionate appointment plea filed by the son of a deceased employee of a Pre-University solely on the ground that there was no vacancy in the institution where the deceased was working.

In doing so the court held that the rejection was in contravention to the state Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration, Grant-in-aid etc.) (Amendment) Rules, and the respondent-authority must strictly follow the rules while deciding such a plea.

Allowing the plea filed by Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar Justice Suraj Govindaraj perused Clause 1(a) and (b) 2010 Rules and said that the same indicated that the compassionate appointment is firstly required to be made in the private aided educational institutions imparting Pre-university Education where the deceased employee has worked.

Compassionate Appointment Applications Must Be Decided Within 90-Days: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel

The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities concerned to decide applications received for Compassionate Appointment within a maximum period of 90 days, from date of receipt of the application.

A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz And Justice K S Hemalekha said, “Compassionate appointment matters being a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families, the State bears a high duty of procedural fairness."

Kerala High Court

Rule 3, Kerala Service Rules; Cannot Withhold Pension Without Any Pending Disciplinary Or Judicial Proceedings: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dr. Ciza Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 383

Kerala High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Johnson John held that withholding pension without any pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings was illegal. The court held that such actions violate Article 14. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the petition being filed under Article 227. The court noted that constitutional courts cannot refrain from acting when the state exercises its authority arbitrarily.

Faced Many Hurdles In Life': Kerala High Court Orders Compassionate Appointment Despite Criminal Antecedents, Applies 'Nexus Test'

Case Title: Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case No: OP(KAT) No. 72 of 2025

The Kerala High Court has set aside an order rejecting a man's appointment under the compassionate employment scheme due to his past involvement in criminal cases, holding that there exists no relevant connection between the alleged offence and the nature of the post in question.

ESI's Refusal To Reimburse Medical Expenses On Minor Technical Grounds Arbitrary: Kerala HC

Case Title: Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. The State Medical Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Honourable Mr. Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court ruled against the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) in a medical reimbursement case. The court held that ESIC's refusal to reimburse expenses for an emergency liver transplantation on grounds such as non-submission of an 'emergency certificate' was hyper-technical and arbitrary. It ruled that once the factum of treatment is established and supported by certified records, reimbursement cannot be denied for minor procedural technicalities. Thus, it directed reimbursement within 60 days.

Illegal Termination Entitles Employee To Full Back Wages Unless Employer Proves Alternative Employment During Suspension: Kerala HC

Case Title: The Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. T.M. George

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an appeal by the Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The bench upheld an Arbitration Court's order to pay full back wages to a former employee. The court held that employers bear the burden of proving that the employee was gainfully employed during his suspension period. In the absence of such proof, the court ruled that illegally terminated employees are entitled to full compensation.

Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Case Title: Nitheesh K. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 217

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the compulsory retirement of a Railway employee. As the only misconduct was unauthorized absence for three days during the pandemic, the court found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate. The court directed his immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and ruled that his absence should be treated as casual leave in accordance with government COVID-related office memorandums.

Appellate Authority Must Consider Prior Judicial Observations When Reconsidering Disciplinary Action: Kerala HC

Case Title: Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Benny Mathew

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 220

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed writ appeals challenging an order that remanded a disciplinary case back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The court held that an Appellate Authority must properly consider prior judicial observations when reconsidering disciplinary action and cannot simply adopt a judicial review approach. The court held that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings; it requires the Appellate Authority to address the case on merits rather than limiting itself to procedural review.

EPS Pension | EPFO Cannot Deny Higher Pension On The Ground That Contributions Were Paid In Bulk: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Gopinathan Pillai M. & Others v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 234

The Kerala High Court held that the Employee Provident Fund Organisation, after having received a contribution to the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS) based on the actual salary, cannot deny the employees a higher pension saying that the contributions were not made in the corresponding month.

Justice Murali Purushothaman ordered so in a petition filed by employees who retired from Milma. On retirement, the EPFO denied pension on actual salary to these employees saying that during some period the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (TCMPU) of MILMA contributed based on the statutory limit. However, TCMPU had made bulk payments to EPFO to make up for the balance amount along with the interest.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act; Actual Acceptance Of Compensation Not Required For Compliance: MP HC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 146

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of justice Maninder Bhatti dismissed two writ petitions filed by daily wage workers (gardeners) challenging their termination. The workers argued that their employer had not followed the procedure mentioned under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before terminating their services. However, the court held that providing retrenchment compensation and the termination order through registered post amounted to valid compliance with Section 25F, and actual acceptance of compensation is not required.

Illegal Termination, Daily Wage Workers Entitled To Reinstatement With 50% Back Wages : MP HC

Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:9151 | The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Gautam

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Vishal Mishra upheld a Labour Court's award that reinstated a daily wage worker with 50% back wages, after finding his termination violated the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act). The court rejected the State's contention that reinstatement should not be granted as a routine remedy. It affirmed that when services are terminated without following the ID Act, reinstatement with back wages remains the normal rule.

MP High Court Clarifies Distinction Between Original And Absorbed Janpad Panchayat Employees For Pension Eligibility

Case No.: W.A. No. 752 of 2020 | Ganesh Ram Kahar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait (Chief Justice) and Vivek Jain dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order. The court ruled that a Janpad Panchayat employee who failed to establish his absorption from the previous Janpad Sabha is not entitled to pension benefits. The court held that only employees of Janpad Sabha absorbed into Janpad Panchayat after the 1962 MP Panchayats Act would have pension rights, while original Janpad Panchayat employees were entitled only to Contributory Provident Fund.

Governor Can't Punish Guilty Govt Official By Dismissal Under Rules, Can Only Withhold/Withdraw Pension For Misconduct: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: Nausad Qureshi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 9268 Of 2014

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 34

While setting aside a dismissal order of a retired government official, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded that under the state civil service pension rules the Governor can only withhold or withdraw the officer's pension for grave misconduct/negligence but cannot impose punishment of dismissal.

Violation Of Service Rules Not Violation Of Public Function, Action Against Private Employee Not Amenable Under Article 226: MP High Court

Case Title: Vikram Singh versus Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 935 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 20

The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions.

In doing so, the court opined that the impugned action must relate to a 'public duty' in order to come under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed, “The right to continue in service cannot be held to be a fundamental right. The service conditions of an employee is governed by the Service rules and violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions and, therefore, any action taken by a private institution against his employee would not come within the judicial scrutiny of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Once Selection Process Culminates Into Document Verification, It Shouldn't Be Cancelled Citing Technical Infirmity: Madhya Pradesh HC

Case Title: Ms. Kritika Mandloi And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 12082 Of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 11

The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that once any selection process for a job post is culminated into the process of document verification after selection of candidates, it should not be cancelled citing technical infirmities in the original advertisement.

MP HC Grants Reinstatement With 50% Back Wages, As Termination Violated Section 25(F), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:9767

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke set aside a labour court award of 2017, that had denied a worker full back wages. The court held that the worker's termination was illegal, as it violated Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act'). Relying on an earlier case from the same court, the High Court directed the worker's reinstatement with 50 % back wages and other consequential benefits.

Irregularly Appointed Staff, If Confirmed, Can't Be Terminated Arbitrarily: MP High Court

Case No.: W.A. 1610 of 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A division bench consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Chief Justice Vivek Jain, reinstated a university employee terminated after over 25 years of service. The court ruled that his appointment was merely irregular and not illegal, and that subsequent confirmation of service had regularised his post. The court held that confirmed employees cannot be terminated without proper inquiry, notwithstanding if the initial appointment was irregular.

Teachers Absorbed Into State Service From Panchayats Are Entitled To Gratuity Under Payment Of Gratuity Act: MP HC

Case No. W.P. No. 31272/2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by the state of Madhya pradesh. The petition challenged an order that granted gratuity to teachers, who were absorbed into State service. The court upheld that the teachers absorbed into state service from panchayats are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and that the service period before their absorption must be counted towards gratuity calculation.

Rights Already Accrued Cannot Be Taken Away Through Subsequent Amendments Having No Retrospective Effect: MP HC

Case No. W.P. No. 13847 of 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi held that the Academic Grade Pay (AGP) benefits once granted, cannot be taken away by subsequent amendments that only have prospective effect. The court explained that the new AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) Regulation, 2016, cannot be used to withdraw AGP benefits granted under the AICTE Regulation, 2010. Thus, the court directed the state to restore all benefits with 8% interest.

Reinstatement Not Automatic Remedy For Illegal Termination, Court Awards Lumpsum Compensation; MP HC

Case No.: Misc. Petition No.4540 of 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke denied reinstatement to a contractual employee who worked for the Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran (MPMKVV). The court explained that reinstatement is not the automatic consequence of illegal termination, especially if it involved a daily wage or contractual worker.

Experience Gained By Discharging Duties 'For A Long' Time Is Enough To Hold That Employee Is Qualified For Post: MP High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Ram Dayal Yadav Versus State of M.P. And Others, Writ Petition No.17607 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 29

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that experience gained by discharging duties for a long period of time is sufficient to hold that an employee has the requisite qualifications.

In doing so, Justice Sanjay Dwivedi allowed a man's plea who was terminated from service as a Driver noting that apart from him not having the required educational qualification there were no other lacunae shown by the authority showing any deficiency in his driving. It thereby termed his dismissal as unjust.

Madras High Court

No Parity In Promotion Can Be Claimed Across Bifurcated Divisions Maintaining Separate Seniority Lists : Madras HC

Case Name : P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that a stale claim for retrospective promotion cannot be revived by a delayed representation after retirement. Further, no parity in promotion can be claimed across divisions following bifurcation into separate administrative divisions with distinct seniority lists.

Shortfall In Service, Excess Pension Paid Due To Factual Errors; Madras HC Upholds Recovery After Retirement

Case Name: P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 251

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that excess pension paid due to a clerical or mechanical mistake in pay fixation to the factually ineligible employee can be recovered post-retirement. Further the protection against recovery laid down in Rafiq Masih case does not apply when eligibility itself is lacking.

Interim Stay On Govt Order Doesn't Create Right Of Appointment Against Abolished Post: Madras High Court

Case Name : Secretary to Government Education Department State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs J. Augustin & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V.Karthikeya and Justice R.Vijayakumar held that an appointment cannot be made to a post abolished by a Government Order, and a stay order in a different matter does not confer any right to appointment or its approval.

Dismissal For Threatening Manager Not Disproportionate When Employee Has Record Of Similar Misconduct: Madras HC

Case Name : A. Shanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 355

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar held that dismissal for abusive and threatening conduct against a superior is not disproportionate when the employee has a history of similar past misconduct.

Departmental Proceedings Against Retired Employees Can't Be Initiated For Incidents Occurring More Than Four Years Before Issuance Of Charge Memo: Madras HC

Case Name : K. Sadhasivam Vs. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 370

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice R. Poornima held that the departmental proceedings against a retired government servant cannot be instituted for an event that took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge memo.

Re-Employment Of Faculty Retiring Mid-Academic Year Is Mandatory, But Disciplinary Proceedings & 'No Work, No Pay' Deny It : Madras HC

Case Name : Dr. R. Mathivanan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 140

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima held that the re-employment of faculty retiring mid-academic year is mandatory, but if there are pending disciplinary proceedings and further the 'no work, no pay' principle applies, then the re-employment is not allowed.

Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Pass Injunctive Relief In Industrial Disputes: Madras HC

Case Title: M. Nagappan v. The Management

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 5

Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed a civil revision petition against a District Munsif's order that refused to pass an injunction against TAW Footwear Division. The Munsif had rejected the plaint holding that the matter was an industrial dispute and fell exclusively within the Labour Court's jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that civil courts have jurisdiction over matters not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. Following Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalakar Shantharam Wadke, it held that since the labour courts were not empowered to grant interim injunctions under the Industrial Disputes Act, civil courts are the appropriate forum.

Terminated Temporary Workers Given Right To Apply In Future Recruitment Processes Along With Age Relaxation: Madras HC

Case Title: M. Maheshwaran and others v. The Chairman & Managing Director and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 163

Madras High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shamim Ahmed held that seasonal workers whose engagement was cancelled due to procedural irregularities, should not be punished for faults of the selection committee. The court ruled that while such temporary workers could not be reinstated, they must be permitted to participate in future recruitment processes, along with appropriate age relaxation.

Manipur High Court

Similarly Situated Employees Under Same Employer Must Be Treated Equally: Manipur HC

Case No. WP(C) No. 500 of 2018

High Court of Manipur: A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma directed the State of Manipur to absorb two Assistant Project Officers (APOs) as Project Officers (POs) in its Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. This rectified their initial absorption into a lower post. Considering the employees' prior promotion, the court held that their subsequent absorption into a lower post was discriminatory compared to other similarly situated employees of the District Rural Development Agency.

Meghalaya High Court

Employee's Plea For D.O.B. Correction At Fag End Of Service: Meghalaya HC Rejects Citing Inordinate Delay

Case Name : Smti. Martinewbell Suchiang vs. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case No. : WP(C) No. 46 of 2025

The Meghalaya High Court bench comprising Justice H. S. Thangkhiew held that correction of date of birth in service records cannot be permitted at the fag end of service, even if supporting documents exist. Further as per Note to SR 8 of the Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules of Meghalaya, correction in date of birth is allowed only in rare cases of manifest error, and must be done at the earliest, preferably during periodic reattestation.

Employee's Plea For D.O.B. Correction At Fag End Of Service: Meghalaya HC Rejects Citing Inordinate Delay

Case Name : Smti. Martinewbell Suchiang vs. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case No. : WP(C) No. 46 of 2025

The Meghalaya High Court bench comprising Justice H. S. Thangkhiew held that correction of date of birth in service records cannot be permitted at the fag end of service, even if supporting documents exist. Further as per Note to SR 8 of the Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules of Meghalaya, correction in date of birth is allowed only in rare cases of manifest error, and must be done at the earliest, preferably during periodic reattestation.

Orissa High Court

Low Vision Candidates Not Eligible For Assistant Agriculture Engineer Post If Not Identified Under PwD Notification : Orissa HC

Case Name : Odisha Public Service Commission vs Biswajit Panda

Case No. : WA No.1289 of 2023

A Division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo held that Candidate with low vision disability cannot claim selection for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer when the disability is not identified as suitable for the post under the Government notification issued under Sections 32 & 33 of the PwD Act, 1995.

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied On Hyper-Technical Medical Terminology When Cause Of Death Falls Within Eligible Diseases: Orissa HC

Case Name : General Manager (HR), Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others vs Ashok Kumar Giri and another

Case No. : W.P.(C) No.20428 of 2025

A Division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice S. S. Mishra held that when medical records from a premier government hospital clearly establish that the deceased employee suffered from cardiac and kidney ailments and died due to cardiac arrest, such death falls within the diseases specified under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme and the company cannot deny it on basis of hyper technicalities of terminology.

Gratuity Can't Be Withheld To Recover Loan Default Even If Retired Employee Was Guarantor : Orissa HC

Case Name : Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. The Joint Labour Commissioner & Others

Case No. : WA No.323 of 2025

A Division bench of the Orrissa High Court comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that gratuity cannot be withheld or forfeited to recover a loan default, even if the retired employee stood as a guarantor, unless termination occurred for misconduct provided under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Termination Without Compliance Of S. 25-F Amounts To Illegal Retrenchment; Enhanced Compensation Granted As Reinstatement Impossible Due To Superannuation: Orissa HC

Case Name : Kanhu Charan Sahoo vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar & Anr.

Case No. : WP(C) Nos.14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020

A Division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice K.R. Mohapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho held that termination without complying with the conditions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is an illegal retrenchment. Further illegally retrenched workman eligible for enhanced compensation as reinstatement was not possible due to superannuation.

Arbitrary Disciplinary Proceedings By SBI, Termination Held Invalid, Orissa HC Awards Compensation

Case Name: State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Behera & Another

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 22135 of 2017

A Division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon & Justice K.R. Mohapatra held that disciplinary action notwithstanding scrutiny on fairness and procedural compliance is arbitrary, and in cases of superannuation of Workman, monetary compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Held Pending Criminal Trial Unless Accused Is Prejudiced: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 7349 of 2025

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously against a delinquent employee and there is no need to keep the disciplinary actions in standby until the conclusion of the criminal trial.

While ingeminating the position of law, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held, “It is, expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible and the authority needs not to await the outcome of the decision of the investigating/prosecuting agency or Court trial.”

Orissa High Court Denies Claim For Regularization Of Previous Service Due To Extended Delay In Filing

Case Name : Tapaswini Acharya v. State of Odisha & others

Case No. : W.P.(C) No13837 of 2013

The Orissa High Court bench comprising of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that claim for regularization of service can be denied due to an extended delay in filing, coupled with the petitioner's subsequent employment in another institution.

Employee Has No Vested Right To Choose Place Of Posting & Designation: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Kishore Biswal v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 30756 of 2024

The Orissa High Court has recently reiterated that an employee has no vested right to choose his place of posting or designation and it is only the prerogative of the employer to decide the same keeping the public interest and larger exigency in view.

Patna High Court

No Concept Of 'Deemed Guilt' In Service Law: Patna High Court Sets Aside Punishment Of Cop For Alleged Failure To Gather Intelligence

Cause Title: Bhola Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Others

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 7478 of 2023

The Patna High Court recently observed that there is no concept of 'deemed guilt' in service law jurisprudence, and set aside the punishment imposed on a police officer.

Vigilance Bureau Staff Entitled To Equal Pay As Other Police Units From 2015: Patna High Court Upholds Retrospective Additional Salary

Case title: The State of Bihar and Ors v. Satya Narayan Ram and Ors
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1773 of 2021

The Patna High Court has confirmed that Vigilance Bureau staff are entitled to retrospective parity in additional salary benefits, bringing them in line with other Bihar Police units.

The matter was decided by the bench of ACJ Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma.

Promotion Takes Effect Only From Actual Promotion Date Or DPC Approval, Not Retrospectively From Date Of Current Duty Charge: Patna HC

Case Name : Union of India & Ors. vs. Vishwa Mohan Kumar

Case No. : Case No.12586 of 2024

A Division bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma held that promotion takes effect only from actual promotion date or DPC approval and not retrospectively from date of current duty charge.

Bihar Police Recruitment: 17 Yrs On, High Court Grants Relief To 252 Candidates Denied Post Despite Higher Merit

Case Title: Santosh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.2372/2023 & connected writs)

Case No: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 2372 of 2023

The Patna High Court directed the State to appoint 252 candidates as Sub-Inspectors in Bihar Police under a 2004 advertisment, holding that denying them appointment despite having higher marks than 133 already appointed candidates violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Justice Arvind Singh Chandel delivered the judgment while allowing three writ petitions filed by unsuccessful aspirants who had cleared both physical and written tests but were left out of the final list.

After 30-Year Legal Battle, Patna High Court Awards Full Back Wages To Illegally Terminated Govt Employee

Case title: Anil Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors

Case No: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13272 of 2013

The Patna High Court has ruled in favor of a government employee who was terminated in 1995, directing the state to pay full back wages upon his reinstatement.

The Court categorically held that the principle of 'no work no pay' does not apply when the termination itself was illegal. This decision brings closure to the petitioner's nearly three-decade-long legal struggle for rightful dues and reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to procedural fairness and employee rights.

'Recovery Of Excess Amount From Retired Employee For Period More Than Five Years Before Order Of Recovery Is Impermissible', Patna High Court

Case Title: Kamlesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 4

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justice Arvind Singh Chandel allowed a Petition challenging an Order of Recovery from a Retired Clerk who was paid an excess amount due to alleged wrong pay fixation. The Court reiterated that the recovery of excess amount paid by mistake is not permissible in cases where the recovery is made in case of employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service and also in cases where the Recovery is sought for the excess amount received by Employees for a period more than five years before the order of recovery is issued.

Re-evaluation Is Not Permissible In Cases Where Authorities Have Ensured Clarity', Patna High Court

Case Title: Bihar Public Service Commission versus Dr. Eena Bahan & Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 5

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia while setting aside a judgment of a Single Judge directing re-evaluation held that in cases related to re-evaluation, the court may permit such re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is committed. The Bench observed that in cases where proper care has been taken the authorities to ensure fair treatment and justice and the same is proven in the Court, re-evaluation may not be directed.

For Mere Unauthorised Absence, Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Too Harsh: Patna HC

Case Title: Deo Narayan Singh vs The Union Of India

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 51

Patna High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Purnendu Singh quashed an order that imposed compulsory retirement on a CISF constable for allegedly misbehaving at work. The court held that the punishment was disproportionate, and further directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose a lesser punishment. The court explained that a disproportionate penalty attracts Article 21 of the Constitution, and if the punishment is unreasonable, it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Pay Verification Cell Cannot Unilaterally Override University's Pay Fixation Of Employees: Patna HC

Case Title: Smt. Kanchan Sah vs The State of Bihar and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 19

Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar ruled that the Pay Verification Cell under the Education Department cannot unilaterally override pay fixation decisions made by a university's statutory committee. The court held that objections from the Pay Verification Cell should be treated as audit objections; they require the university to notify affected employees and seek their responses before any action is taken. The court ruled that the final decision on pay fixation must come from the university, as the Pay Verification Cell lacks any jurisdiction in this regard.

Education Department's 2013 Resolution Binding; Retrenchment Period Must Be Counted For Pension Calculation: Patna HC

Case Title: Arun Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar and And

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 55

Patna High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Harish Kumar held that for a former Adult Education Project Employee who was later absorbed into the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), retrenchment periods must be counted for pension calculation. Relying on a 2013 Resolution of the Education Department, the court held that retrenchment period must be counted on a notional basis for pension benefits. Thus, the court directed the Accountant General to issue a fresh payment order, including the retrenchment period for pension calculation.

Termination Of Services Of Anganwadi Supervisor Without Following Procedure, Patna HC Revokes.

Case Title: Kiran Devi vs The State of Bihar and Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 1