Supreme Court Requests Allahabad HC CJ To Ensure Priority Disposal Of Long-Pending Service Disputes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to identify long-pending service disputes and take steps to ensure their expeditious disposal, expressing concern that employees often continue litigating service matters for decades, sometimes until they approach superannuation

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh issued the direction while allowing an appeal filed by a government employee seeking cadre reallocation in a 29-year-old dispute.

The Court noted that prolonged pendency of service disputes reflects administrative apathy and causes sustained hardship to employees and their families.

"It is difficult to think that there are not many other cases where on account of long pendency of service dispute the party in question would be approaching superannuation as the case may also be here.  As such, it is requested that the learned Chief Justice of the High Court ascertain the number of such cases long pending and endeavour to have them decided expeditiously by possibly by distributing them across benches which would ensure that they are taken up and decided within a comparatively shorter span of time.”

The Court also came down heavily on the State of Uttar Pradesh, expressing “deep anguish” over a nearly three-decade-long delay in granting a government employee his rightful service benefits.

The appeal was filed by a State employee who, despite being selected in 1997, was appointed by the Uttar Pradesh Government only in 2011 and continued to be kept outside his preferred Uttarakhand cadre, even though he had specifically indicated this preference during recruitment in light of his son's cognitive disability.

Background

The appellant had successfully cleared the Combined Lower Subordinate Services Examination, 1995, conducted in Uttar Pradesh, securing high marks. He had opted for posting in the “hill cadre”, which later became part of the State of Uttarakhand after its creation in 2000.

However, he was denied appointment on a technical ground relating to the submission of his B.Ed marksheet, even though he had produced it at the interview stage. Aggrieved, he approached the Allahabad High Court in 1997.

In 2004, the High Court allowed his petition and directed an appointment with notional effect from 1997. The State's appeal was dismissed in 2009. Despite this, Bora was only appointed in 2011, nearly 14 years after his due date.

Even after his appointment, he was posted in Uttar Pradesh instead of the hill cadre (Uttarakhand), contrary to his original preference. His repeated representations seeking cadre allocation to Uttarakhand, also citing his son's cognitive disability, went unanswered, forcing him into another round of litigation before the High Court seeking a change of cadre from UP to Uttarakhand.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, he then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Karol set aside the High Court's refusal to grant the appellant a change of cadre, noting that he had been denied placement in his preferred cadre due to technical lapses that were not attributable to any fault on his part.

The Court criticised the State of Uttar Pradesh for its apathy in disregarding the appellant's request for a change of cadre, noting that his concerns, particularly his son's cognitive disability, which had been expressly highlighted during the recruitment process, were ignored.

“The appellant became eligible to be appointed in the year 1997 but was only actually appointed in 2011, and even today in 2026 he continues to fight for his rights. Once the High Court had, in 2004 cleared the way for his appointment, he should have at least been appointed, subject to the outcome of the appeal, if any, that would have been filed by the State. That did not happen.”, the court observed for State of UP.

“The appeal was dismissed in 2009 yet formal appointment came only in 2011. From 2011 onwards, he is being made to run from pillar to post to fructify the needs/preferability of being posted in his home State. This is in no way, shape or form, anything other than apathy on part of the State. This becomes clearer if the issue is looked at in terms of absolute numbers. The person was appointed with effect from June 1997 and today we are in April of 2026. Only now will he get something that he had opted for right from the start. Even if we exclude the initial few years till his appointment was confirmed by the High Court in the first writ petition which was in February 2004, even from that point onwards 22 years have passed. The entire time that being close to family would have been a great sense of support in raising his son, he has spent away from family at least since 2011.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh to facilitate “forthwith the reallocation of the appellant to the State of Uttarakhand.”

“While doing so, his seniority and all relevant benefits shall be protected. A copy of this judgment also be sent to Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand, for necessary follow up action.”, the court said.

Taking serious note of the prolonged injustice, the Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to the appellant.

Headnote

Service Law – Transfer vs. Change in Cadre – Fundamental Distinction – The Supreme Court illuminated the clear and substantive legal difference between a "transfer" and a "change in cadre" - A transfer refers merely to a change in the place of posting of an employee within the same cadre or service, acting as an incident of service routinely exercised for administrative convenience without impacting seniority, rules, or substantive status - a change in cadre is exceptional, altering the very structural framework within which the employee's service, seniority, promotional avenues, and conditions are regulated, thereby requiring specific statutory authority or higher-level approval. [Para 7]

State Reorganisation – Cadre Reallocation Criteria – Exceptions for Medical Hardships – The broad principles governing the allocation of State cadre employees to successor States primarily include option, followed by domicile (Home District), and lastly by inclusion of the junior-most personnel in the reverse order of seniority - Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines carve out specific exceptions to facilitate allocation based on option for certain vulnerable classes, including handicapped persons and defined medical hardship cases - The exception for "Mental Illness" explicitly covers the employee or their "family" (which includes dependent children) - Where a candidate's child is cognitively challenged, the allocation must be governed strictly by the option exercised by the employee. [Paras 8, 9, and 10]

State Apathy and Litigation Delay – Award of Costs – Mandate for Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court expressed deep anguish over gross administrative apathy where an employee, eligible for appointment in 1997, had to litigate for nearly three decades (until 2026) to secure his rightful cadre allocation - Noting that the appellant spent 22 years fighting the State instead of being close to his cognitively disabled son for family support, the Court awarded exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000/- to be paid by the State of Uttar Pradesh - to tackle the systemic issue of long-pending service disputes pushing employees close to superannuation, Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to ascertain such pending cases and distribute them across benches for expeditious disposal. [Paras 11, 12, and 13]

Cause Title: RAJENDRA SINGH BORA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG Ms. Praveena Gautam, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.N.Terdal, AOR Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv.