Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025: Service Law

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 20 - Time-Barred Claims - A time-barred service dispute cannot be brought within the limitation period by filing a belated representation. When a government servant is aggrieved by a denial of a benefit, which is not based on a formal order, then a representation must be filed within a reasonable time. The cause of action to approach the Administrative Tribunal arises when an order is passed on such representation or no order is passed after the lapse of six months from the submission of the representation. There may be situations such as denial of promotion or increment, which are not based on formal orders. In such cases, filing of a representation may be necessary, even if the service rules do not provide specifically for such a remedy. (Paras 34 - 36) Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalitha, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : 2025 INSC 565 Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008; Rule 18 - Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rules 5, 9 and 14 - Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - Disability Pension - Invalided Soldier - Presumption of Disability Due to Military Service - Burden on Army to Prove Otherwise - Soldier invalided out of service due to disability presumed to have incurred disability from military service unless proven otherwise by the Army - No requirement for soldier to prove disease was contracted or aggravated by military service - Disability leading to invalidation presumed to be above 20%, entitling soldier to 50% disability pension - Beneficial provision to be interpreted liberally - Army directed to grant 50% disability pension with 6% interest on arrears from 01.01.1996 for life, payable within three months. (Paras 44 - 46) Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 477 : 2025 INSC 549 : AIR 2025 SC 2130 Banking Service - UCO Bank Pension Regulations, 1995 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 2(p) and 18(1) - Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957; Rule 58 - Bipartite Settlement, 1966 - An employee dismissed for misconduct after completing over ten years of service is entitled to pensionary benefits under the Bipartite Settlement. Regulation 22 which denies pension to removed employees, does not override Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, which has statutory force under the Industrial Disputes Act. An employee meeting the minimum qualifying service requirement cannot be denied pension, regardless of misconduct, harmonizing the provisions to uphold the employee's superannuation benefits. Appeal dismissed. (Para 14, 17 & 22) Uco Bank v. Vijay Kumar Handa, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 390 : 2025 INSC 442 : AIR 2025 SC (CIVIL) 1484 Banking Service - Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976; Regulation 19 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) - Procedural Fairness - Mala Fides - Retirement Benefits - Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of a charge sheet by Union Bank of India against a former employee, without obtaining the Central Vigilance Commission's (CVC) first-stage advice in a vigilance-related case, violated procedural fairness and the Bank's regulations. Held, the Bank's actions, initiated just before the appellant's retirement after 34 years of unblemished service, breached procedural fairness, particularly as the Bank had assured the High Court that the charge sheet would be issued only after receiving CVC advice. The Supreme Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings, finding the Bank's failure to obtain and consider CVC's first-stage advice before issuing the charge sheet arbitrary, mala fide, and in violation of Regulation 19 and CVC circulars. The appeal was allowed, the charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings were set aside, and the Bank was directed to release the appellant's full retirement benefits, excluding back wages. (Para 21) A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 640 : 2025 INSC 744 : AIR 2025 SC 2520 Caste Certificate - Plea to submit caste certificates beyond cut-off date - OBCNCL/MBC-NCL certificates valid for one year, extendable to three with affidavit – appellants lacked valid certificates at application deadline – No relaxation permissible – As per relevant law, rules and instructions, a certificate of a claim, as put forth by the appellants, was valid for 1 year from the date of issuance, and subsequently, extendable up to 3 years, provided an affidavit to the said effect was also produced along with the originally issued certificate. A claim made by a candidate, while filling their application as per the concerned advertisement, was to hold good as on the date of his or her application or as per the last date of submission of applications prescribed by the concerned advertisement. Thereupon, considering the date of issuance of the category certificates in the appellants' case, none of...

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025: Service Law

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags