Supreme Court Quarterly Digest 2022- Labour & Service Laws (Jan-March)

Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Importance of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the affected party in any administrative or quasi­judicial proceedings. (Para 28) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 25 - Chairman could pass an order of transfer under Section 25 of the Act suo motu. (Para 8) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 25 - Any decision of Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. (Para 16) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. (Para 24) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Army Law - Appeal against Armed Forces Tribunal order of conviction and dismissal from service of former Lt Gen SK Sahni for allegations relating to procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation - Allowed - AFT has specifically come to a finding that the respondent has not committed any fraud or did not commit any act which resulted in actual loss or wrongful gain to any person. We are unable to appreciate as to on what basis the learned AFT comes to a conclusion that the acts lead to an inference that the attempts were made to cause a wrongful gain. Union of India v. Lt. Gen SK Sahni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Compassionate Appointments restricted to Class III/IV (group C/D) Posts - SC pulls up TN Govt over Group B Appointments. M. Kendra Devi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - The appellant was serving as a Branch Officer of a Bank. A complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/­ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/ - when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer held that most of the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him. The Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service. Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved. Therefore, the High Court order was modified to the extent substituting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - Service Law - An amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 47) Punjab State Co. Agri. Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 42

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Appeal against High Court judgment which held that though the LARGESS Scheme was terminated, since the respondent's father superannuated on 1 January 2015 prior to 27 January 2017, the benefit of the scheme could be extended to him in terms of the notification dated 28 September 2018- Allowed - The impugned judgment issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - No yardstick can be laid down by the Court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation. (Para 16) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - The judgment of M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 should be declared to have prospective effect- Making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time. (Para 42) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or 'class'/'group' but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service. (Para 29) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors. (Para 30) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - We are not inclined to express any view on discontinuation of reservations in totality, which is completely within the domain of the legislature and the executive. As regards review, we are of the opinion that data collected to determine inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically. The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out. (Para 31) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - The conclusion in B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India (2019) 16 SCC 129 approving the collection of data on the basis of 'groups' and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors.(2018) 10 SCC 396 – The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into account the data pertaining to a 'group', which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not group-wise. Sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate for collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a 'group', is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. (Para 47) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which set aside the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent employee from service following a disciplinary enquiry on charges of bribery - Allowed - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employee - The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 233, 235 - The High Courts are well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to sub-serve this - The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment - Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confront challenges to liberty and justice. (Para 26) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 311(2) - Judicial Service - When the Government had, on enquiry, come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the appellant was unsuitable for the post he held on probation, this was clearly by way of punishment and, hence, the appellant would be entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 50) Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

CUSAT - Director/HOD of Cochin University a teacher who was being considered for HOD on a rational basis would not be prohibited from being considered for appointment when second rotational term becomes due if he/she during the first term makes a request of being relieved from the responsibility for academic reason. Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. v. Dr. Rajitha Kumar S., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee. Specific rights and obligations would bind the parties and govern their conduct. A transient business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation unless the respondent were to lead cogent evidence to indicate that the appellant was seconded to work overseas on deputation. Sarita Singh v. Shree Infosoft, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Differential pay scale along with a process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are the factors to determine whether a particular post is the same as the other or a promotional one. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Differential pay scale along with a process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are the factors to determine whether a particular post is the same as the other or a promotional one. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Case - The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction - In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. (Para 13) State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Disciplinary Proceedings - Bank employee was dismissed after conducting a disciplinary proceedings - Appellate authority dismissed his appeal - Industrial Tribunal held that the punishment awarded to the employee of dismissal is not commensurate with the charge levelled against him - In writ petition filed against Tribunal order, the High Court refused to interfere with the Order for the reason that the respondent employee by that time had retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2007. Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal order and observed: Merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence. (Para 11) United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Disciplinary Proceedings - Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Such a misconduct of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and playing with the life of the others is a very serious misconduct. - Merely because there was no major loss and it was a minor accident cannot be a ground to show leniency. (Para 11, 10) Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Sanya Sahayak, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 81

Disciplinary Proceedings - Effect of Acquittal - An acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. (Para 10.4) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Disciplinary Proceedings - The only requirement is that a delinquent officer must be given fair opportunity to represent his case and that there is no absolute right in his favour to be represented through the agent of his choice. (Para 8) Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Disciplinary Proceedings - The standard of proof in departmental proceedings, being based on preponderance of probability, is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt - The test of criminal proceedings ought not to be applied in departmental proceedings to call for handwriting experts to examine signatures. Indian Overseas Bank v. Om Prakash Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Disciplinary Proceedings - There is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent officer's to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. (Para 7) Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par. (Para 10.2) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to the financial upgradation benefits envisaged under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999. (Para 18) Scottish doctrine of "Approbate and Reprobate -" The English equivalent of the doctrine was explained in Lissenden v. CAV Bosch Ltd. wherein Lord Atkin observed at page 429, "…………In cases where the doctrine does apply the person concerned has the choice of two rights, either of which he is at liberty to adopt, but not both. Where the doctrine does apply, if the person to whom the choice belongs irrevocably and with knowledge adopts the one he cannot afterwards assert the other…………." Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government." (Para 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to be best left to an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court's interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues. (Para 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. (Para 25) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

If a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because she has suffered stagnation. This is because, it is not a case of lack of promotional opportunities but an employee opting to forfeit offered promotion, for her own personal reasons. However, this vital aspect was not appropriately appreciated by the High Court while granting relief to the employees. (Para 16) Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

In the event of a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail - an erroneous advertisement would not create a right in favour of applicants who act on such representation. (Para 20) Employees State Insurance Co. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which held that an employer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output - Disposed - The impugned judgment protects the interest of the appellant and the workmen by prescribing the right procedure which should be followed in case the appellant is of the opinion that the workmen, though present on duty, are not working and are not giving the agreed production on the basis of which wages and incentives have been fixed. Bata India Ltd. vs. Workmen of Bata India Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Tribunal - If irregularity or illegality committed by a Tribunal touches upon the jurisdiction to try and determine over a subject dispute is altogether beyond its purview, that question would go to the root of the matter and it would be within the jurisdiction of the superior court to correct such error. (Para 15) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Tribunal - The Tribunal could not go beyond the disputes that were referred to it - The scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is wide and in appropriate cases it has the jurisdiction even to make a contract. (Para 14, 25) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Right of minority workmen to raise industrial dispute - A minority union of workers may raise an industrial dispute even if another union which consists of the majority of them enters into a settlement with the employer. (Para 20) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18 - Binding nature of a settlement on all persons employed in an establishment discussed. (Para 16 - 17) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - Prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act is necessarily a pre­existing benefit or one flowing from a pre­existing right. The difference between a pre­existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act while the latter does not. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The principle of limited interference would apply to a proceeding of this nature under the 1947 Act. (Para 25) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act,1947 - Section 33C(2) - Not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer - employee relationship - In an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Interpretation of Statutes - Service Law - When the rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation. (Para 13) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Interpretation of Statutes - Service Law - When the rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation. (Para 13) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Judicial Service - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which refused to interfere with cancellation of appointment of appellant judicial officer who could not join before prescribed date due to nationwide lockdown imposed in view of covid-19 pandemic - Allowed - It is not a case where there is a complete dearth of any explanation by the candidate - There was considerable confusion also about what a person could do and what a person could not do during the time of the lockdown. It was an unprecedented situation which affected the nation - Impugned notification quashed and appointment restored - The appellant will not be entitled to claim seniority / backwages. Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Judicial Service - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld discharge of a judicial officer - Allowed - Charges filed against the appellant are vague in nature and that absolutely no details have been provided regarding the said allegation of passing the bail order for extraneous considerations/ ulterior motive - Even if appellant's act is considered to be negligent, it cannot be treated as "misconduct" - The appellant be reinstated with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority, but will be entitled to be paid only 50% backwages, which may be paid within a period of four months. Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Judicial Service - Delhi Higher Judicial Service - In order to obviate any further litigation and uncertainty, we permit the High Court as a one-time measure to allow those candidates who were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 to participate in the ensuing DHJS examinations. (Para 29) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Judicial Service - Delhi Higher Judicial Service - The deletion of the minimum age requirement of 35 years in 2019 may have been guided by the need to attract a larger pool of applicants to DHJS. But the reinstatement of a minimum age requirement of 35 years is a matter of policy. This conforms to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. (Para 27) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Judicial Service - Discharge of Judicial Officer - Negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct - Relief-oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer- Every judicial officer is likely to commit mistake of some kind or the other in passing orders in the initial stage of his service, which a mature judicial officer would not do. However, if the orders are passed without there being any corrupt motive, the same should be over-looked by the High Court and proper guidance should be provided to him. (Para 69, 54) Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Judicial Service - The writ petitioner alleged that hostile transfer orders were passed as she did not act as per the demands of the supervising High Court judge. She complained that was faced with transfer from a Category 'A' city to Category 'C' city and also a Naxal affected area, in violation of the extant transfer policy of the High Court. Since the transfer would have prevented her from being with her daughter who was then appearing for the board exams, she was faced with no option but to resign. Later, she approached the Supreme Court asserting her right to be reinstated. The Supreme Court Held: Though, it may not be possible to observe that the petitioner was forced to resign, however, the circumstances would clearly reveal that they were such, that out of frustration, the petitioner was left with no other alternative. The petitioner's resignation from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior dated 15th July 2014, cannot be construed to be voluntary and as such, the order dated 17th July 2014, passed by the respondent No. 2, thereby accepting the resignation of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside; and the respondents are directed to re­instate the petitioner forthwith as an Additional District & Sessions Judge. Though the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, she would be entitled for continuity in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 15th July 2014. Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

MACP Scheme - Any revision of pay-structure or revision in other terms and conditions, of Central Government personnel cannot and do not automatically apply to the DDA; it has to consider the new or fresh scheme formulated by the Central Government, and adopt it, if necessary, after appropriate adaptation, to suit its needs. Therefore, the Central Government's MACP scheme did not apply to it automatically. (Para 29) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

MACP Scheme - That, some employees could have benefitted more under the ACP benefits, if the MACP scheme had not been introduced from an earlier date, is no ground to hold so and compel an executive agency to grant the claimed benefits. (Para 37) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Minimum Age - The prescription of a rule providing for a minimum age requirement or maximum age for entry into service is essentially a matter of policy - Determination of cut-offs lies in the realm of policy. (Para 25) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Modified Assured Career Progression - MACP Scheme envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and has nothing to do with the next promotional post. (Para 4.1) Directorate of Enforcement v. Sudheesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Norms applicable to the recruitment and conditions of service of officers belonging to the civil services can be stipulated in: (i) A law enacted by the competent legislature; (ii) Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution; and (iii) Executive instructions issued under Article 73 of the Constitution, in the case of civil services under the Union and Article 162, in the case of civil services under the States. (Para 28) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Pension - Grant of pensionary benefits is not a one-time payment. Grant of pensionary benefits is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous liability in future towards the pensionary benefits. (Para 10.7) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Pension - High Court directed to pay pensionary benefits to an ad -hoc employee who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service - SLP filed by the State Dismissed - The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Pension - principles governing pensions and cut-off dates summarized - All pensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class - The benefit of a new element in a pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied. However, the scheme cannot bifurcate a homogenous group based on a cut-off date- Same principle of computation of pensions must be applied uniformly to a homogenous class - It is not a legal mandate that pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pension. The varying benefits that may be applicable to certain personnel which would also impact the pension payable need not be equalized with the rest of the personnel. (Para 48) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the requirement of the administration. (Para 26) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Policy Decision - The Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences. (Para 10.4) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Premature Retirement - The entire service record is to be taken into consideration which would include the ACRs of the period prior to the promotion. The order of premature retirement is required to be passed on the basis of entire service records, though the recent reports would carry their own weight. (Para 15) Central Industrial Security Force v. HC (GD) Om Prakas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 128

Promotion - A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process - There can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules - A right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. (Para 18) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Promotion - A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process - There can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules - A right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. (Para 18) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Promotion - Seniority cum merit - A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection post. The employer's preference for a person with a clean service record can be well appreciated - Despite the difficulty in encapsulating the parameters for 'merit', a significant marker can be found in the unblemished record of the employee. (Para 25) Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Promotion - Seniority cum merit - Appeal against High Court judgment that set aside resolution of Cantonment Board in favour of appellant in the matter of promotion to a selection post - Allowed - The unblemished service record of the appellant vis-à-vis the pending disciplinary proceedings against the respondent (eventually resulting in penalty), were taken into account - The higher pay in the same grade as per the applicable O.M., is a reliable indicator for determining inter-se seniority - All these circumstances in our opinion, weigh in favour of the appellant Rama Negi. Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Promotion - Seniority cum merit - Parameters for determining promotion discussed - The totality of the service of the employee has to be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. (Para 19-20) Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Promotion - When an employee refuses the offered promotion, difficulties in manning the higher position might arise which give rise to administrative difficulties as the concerned employee very often refuse promotion in order to continue in his/her own place of posting. (Para 17) Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Regularization - Appeal against High Court order which allowed writ petition filed by few employees claiming parity in date of regularization- Allowed - date of regularization and grant of pay scale is a prerogative of the employer/screening committee and no parity can be claimed in the matter of regularization in different years. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Chiggan Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296

Regularization - State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 - The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (supra) was, (1) to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future, and (2) to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past and who have continued for a very long time. The decision of Umadevi (supra) may be applicable in a case where the appointments are irregular on the sanctioned posts in regular establishment. The same does not apply to temporary appointments made in a project/programme. (Para 8) State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 24 Mar 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Regularization - The date from which regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view a number of factors like the nature of the work, number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made etc. The said decision will depend upon the facts of each year and no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of the earlier years. (Para 9-12) Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Chiggan Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296

Service Law - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which upheld School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Private School Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, setting aside the Enquiry Committee's order of dismissal on the sole ground that the President of the Management was not the President of the Enquiry Committee - Allowed - "Doctrine of Necessity" applied to sustain the findings of a Disciplinary Enquiry Committee against a School Principal, after noting that the President of the Committee had to be replaced due to ill health. Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Ramesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Service Law - Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside punishment of dismissal awarded by appellate authority and restoring lesser punishment awarded by disciplinary authority - Partly allowed - Punishment of dismissal imposed by the Appellate Authority was not grossly disproportionate to the quantum of the offence. Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Service Law - Appeal against High Court judgment which directed the reinstatement of an employee with back-wages - Allowed - A stale claim cannot be revived by a representation. Nagar Panchayat v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Service Law - Appeal against the High Court judgment which upheld the cancellation of appointment of the appellant on the premise of non­disclosure of criminal case being instituted against him in the year 1997, when he was a juvenile - Allowed - the appellant was a juvenile when a criminal case was registered against him and was also a juvenile when the order of discharge was passed - This was indisputedly a special circumstance indeed which was not taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order of cancellation of his appointment - The seriatim of facts cumulatively indicate that the nature of information which was not disclosed by the appellant, in any manner, could be considered to be a suppression of material information. Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Service Law - Appeals against a Kerala High Court judgment which rejected the challenge against a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in 2018 withdrawing Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICT) - Dismissed - While we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - The manner in which and the period over which revisions should take place of pensions, salaries and other financial benefits is a pure question of policy. (Para 37) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Service Rules (Kerala); Rule 3 and 3A- Death Cum Retirement Gratuity - The pendency of the appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG - Rule 3A cannot be read in isolation 25 nor the latter part of it struck down as done by the High Court. Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A have to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment of the DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement. Even in the absence of these proceedings in certain eventualities the amounts can be recovered from the DCRG - Set aside Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in K. Chandran vs Local Self Government Department 2020 (5) KLT 669 (FB) (Para 37, 39) Local Self Government Department v. K. Chandran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 285

Services rendered by an employee on work charge basis cannot be considered for the grant of benefit of first time bound promotion if the employee is absorbed in service on a different pay-scale. (Para 3.1, 4) State of Maharashtra v Madhukar Antu Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Suppression of information about criminal cases - This Court has held that giving of a wrong information disentitles the candidate for appointment -An employee desirous of holding civil post has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. Truthfulness cannot be made causality by an aspirant much more for a candidate aspiring to be a teacher. (Paras 10, 11 and 12) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Bheem Singh Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Suppression of Material Information - The candidate who intend to participate in the selection process is required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before or after his induction into service - The person who has suppressed the material information, cannot claim unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service but, at the same time, he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be exercised in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of case on hand. The yardstick which has to be applied always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the competent authority considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due diligence of various aspects at the given time and no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. (Para 15) Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300

The concept of "vested right". (Para 33) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Transfer - Normally an order of transfer, which is an incident of service should not be interfered with, unless it is found that the same is mala fide - Mala fide is of two kinds — one 'malice in fact' and the second 'malice in law'. When an order is not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground, such an order would not be sustainable in law. (Para 61) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Transfer Policy - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - A statutory mandate for recognizing the principle of reasonable accommodation for the disabled members of society - The formulation of a policy therefore, must take into account the mandate which Parliament imposes as an intrinsic element of the right of the disabled to live with dignity. (Para 49) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Transfer Policy - The State while formulating a policy for its own employees has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy. (Para 51) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Voluntary Retirement - Once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a "golden handshake" between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. (Para 16) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Voluntary Retirement - Once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a "golden handshake" between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. (Para 16) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254