Labour And Service Digest 2025(Half Yearly January To June)

Allahabad High Court 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...

Labour And Service Digest 2025(Half Yearly January To June)

Namdev Singh

Tags