Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025- Service Law

Alteration of Selection Criteria - Weightage of Qualifications - Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (Board) - Recruitment of Foresters - Academic Qualification for Forester - Held that the minimum academic qualification for the post of Forester was or equivalent with Science - Stress was primarily on physical attributes and viva voce, not solely academic criteria - The Board initially provided 25 points for a B.Sc. Forestry degree out of a total of 100 points - After conducting interviews, the Board changed the evaluation criteria, differentiating between a 4-year B.Sc. Forestry course (awarded 25 points) and a 3-year B.Sc. Forestry course (awarded 20 points) - Altering the evaluation procedure after the interviews were held, when candidates had completed their participation in the selection process, was found to be arbitrary and lacking a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved - Held that the change in the evaluation criteria was made at the stage of preparation of the select list and was deemed arbitrary by the Supreme Court - Appeal dismissed. [Relied on K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512; Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2025) 2 SCC 1; Paras 10, 11] J and K Service Selection Board v. Sudesh Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1156 Annual Increment for Retirees – Held, government employees are entitled to an annual increment earned the day before retirement, as per Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani (11.04.2023). This entitlement applies prospectively to third parties from 01.05.2023, with enhanced pension including one increment payable from that date. No enhanced pension is payable for the period before 30.04.2023. For employees who succeeded in prior writ petitions, the judgment operates as res judicata, entitling them to enhanced pension with one increment as per the judgment, unless the judgment is under appeal and not final. Retired employees who filed applications for intervention, impleadment, writ petitions, or original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), High Courts, or Supreme Court are entitled to enhanced pension with one increment for the three years prior to the month of filing, as per modified direction issued on 20.02.2025. Applications filed after Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj (19.05.2023) are governed by the prospective application rule and not the modified direction. Excess payments or arrears already made will not be recovered. Aggrieved parties may approach relevant authorities for non-compliance and, if necessary, the CAT or High Court as per law. Union of India v.. M. Siddaraj, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 258 Appointment in excess of advertised vacancies – Termination – Justification of termination – Scope of Rule 12 of the relevant Rules – Maintenance of Wait List – Complete Justice- Held that Rule 12 was interpreted in Naseem Ahmad case to permit a waiting list of 'reasonable dimensions' to be maintained, which is adequate to meet vacancies that might be available within a reasonable period in the year of recruitment or the year succeeding thereto - The explicit rider in the advertisement that the vacancies could be increased or decreased indicated the Appointing Authority's intention to maintain a wait list to fill up excess vacancies, as permissible under the rules - Given that the next advertisement was only after 8 years (in 2008), it was evident that vacancies arose within that period, justifying the appellants' appointments subsequent to the twelve advertised vacancies - Held that the termination was found to be unjustified. [Relied on Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2011) 2 SCC 734; Paras 6,7,10,11,12] Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (UP), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1031 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;...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025- Service Law

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags