Labour & Service
Non-Ministerial Posts In Special Police Battalion Fall Under State Cadre, Promotions Must Follow State-Wide Seniority: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that posts of Police Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspector in the Special Police Battalions are State cadre posts governed under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975. It further held that promotions to such non-ministerial posts cannot be governed by...
CPF Option Exercised Can't Be Reversed To Claim Pension Under CCS Rules: Delhi HC
A Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an employee who has exercised an option to remain under the CPF scheme cannot later claim pension benefits under the CCS Pension Rules, as deemed conversion applies only where no option was exercised. Background Facts The petitioners are a group of former employees of the Export Inspection Council (EIC) and...
Public Advertisement Can't Replace Direct Communication To Employees For Promotion : Jharkhand HC
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that public advertisements cannot substitute direct communication with employees for departmental requirements, and denying promotion to eligible employees without proper notice is arbitrary. It was further held that affected employees are entitled to retrospective promotion...
Combatised BSF Person Retire At 57, Can't Claim Civilian Retirement Age Of 60 - Delhi High Court
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that a re-employed ex-serviceman appointed to a combatised post in the Border Security Force, who enjoys the benefits of that combatised cadre, is governed by the BSF's statutory superannuation age of 57 years and not by the 60-year retirement age applicable to...
Pay Parity Can't Be Claimed On Common Recruitment When Pay Commission Maintains Cadre Distinction: Delhi HC
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that pay parity cannot be claimed solely on basis of historical parity, common recruitment, or similar designation and overlap in functional duties, when the Pay Commission has maintained a distinction between different service cadres i.e. Secretariat and...
Identical Evidence: Orissa High Court Quashes Disciplinary Action After Criminal Court Acquittal
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that departmental proceedings based on identical evidence must be set aside when a criminal court has acquitted the employee on the merits, leaving the disciplinary findings based on “no evidence.” Background Facts The employee (respondent) was serving as a...
June 30 Retirement No Bar To July 1 Annual Increment- Delhi High Court
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that a government employee retiring on 30 June is entitled to increment due on 1 July, as the increment is earned for the completed year of service preceding retirement and cannot be denied merely because it becomes payable after retirement. Background Facts The...
Myth Of Formalisation: Economic Survey Projections And Governance Challenges In India's Labour Codes
India's new labour codes have been promoted as reforms with the potential to bring major change whose draft rule was issued in December 2025. The Economic Survey 2025–26 presents an optimistic outlook: the codes are expected to raise formalisation from 60.4% to 75.5%, create 77 lakh jobs, lower unemployment, increase female labour force participation, and add 1.25% to GDP by 2029–30. These projections are based on the assumption that simplifying compliance for firms will encourage formalisation...
Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down 1997 Rule Mandating Govt-Parity Retiral Benefits For Cooperative Society Employees
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the 1997 Service Rules mandating retiral benefits for employees of cooperative societies at par with government employees are ultra vires the parent statute and unenforceable. The Court observed that the State Government had no authority to further delegate its rule-making power to the Registrar, and such sub-delegation was neither...
Pay Commission Benefits Can't Be Denied By Creating Additional Conditions: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on April 1 observed that the Central Pay Commission's recommendation cannot be loosely construed to deny a benefit to an employee by creating an additional condition to deny the benefit of the pay commission. A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard the matter concerning the respondents, who had initially joined the Border Roads Organisation...