Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001, Rule 24(4) -- Scuffle between judicial officers -- Discharge of Probationer Judicial Officers – Rule of natural justice -- Order of discharge of services of petitioners as probationer are clearly stigmatic which required inquiry prior to discharge from service -- Since the order of discharge of service of petitioners is punitive in nature, the maxim of Audi alterm partem was required to be followed prior to their discharge.

(Para 7, 94)

A. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 4, 5 -- Forfeiture of gratuity – Initial appointment by fraud – Conviction in criminal proceedings not necessary -- Petitioner supressed his actual date of birth -- Failure of the employer to initiate a criminal proceeding on the fraud employed by way of the fabricated/ forged certificate produced for the purpose of employment, does not militate against the forfeiture -- No conviction in a criminal proceeding is necessitated, if the misconduct alleged & proved constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude -- Appointment itself being illegal, there is no question of the terminated employee seeking fruits of his employment by way of gratuity – Decision of the PSU forfeiting entire gratuity, upheld.

(Para 13-15)

B. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 4, 5 -- Forfeiture of gratuity -- Misappropriation of meagre amounts -- It is trite that even if minimal amounts are misappropriated it would constitute a misconduct warranting termination -- However, on the question of forfeiture of gratuity, Appointing Authority should have taken a more sympathetic approach -- Appointing Authority directed to limit the forfeiture to 25% of the gratuity payable and release the balance amounts.

(Para 15)

Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3, 4A -- Compensation to employee – Interest thereupon -- Interest liability arises on default of the employer, in paying the admitted compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due and if there is such default, necessarily interest shall run at the rate provided -- Interest runs from the date of the accident -- 12% simple interest per annum necessarily has to be applied.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 245 -- functus officio -- Rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio -- The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 42)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226, 245 -- Statutory rules – Rule of natural justice – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of -- It is a well-settled principle of law that while administrative actions and statutory rules that impact citizens’ rights are subject to judicial review, the notion that the State must provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power is fundamentally flawed.

(Para 45)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 -- Part time sweeper – Regular pay scale -- Appellants were appointed on the ground of recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by Collector, against the vacant posts as part time sweepers at Collector’s prescribed rates -- Appellants were appointed for posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under Special Recruitment Drive -- They are covered under Clause 6 of the Circular dated 10.05.1984 since they have completed three years and fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular to grant revised pay-scale -- Designation as ‘part-time’ sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless -- Appellants fighting this battle for regular pay-scale since 2016 and they have extended their service to the State for substantial years -- But more importantly they have proven that their situation is covered under the State issued Circular and Rules – Held, it confers upon them a legal right to avail regular pay-scale.

(Para 13-18)

Constitution of India Article 14, 16, 309 – Appointment of teachers -- Change in eligibility criteria – Permissibility of -- Advertisement was issued on 19.07.2023 and the eligibility criteria was set out as per 2022 Recruitment Rules -- By which the candidates must have passed Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Jharkhand – By notice dated 10.01.2024, applications were called from the residents of Jharkhand possessing CTET and STET qualification between 19.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 -- Amendments in 2022 Recruitment Rules were brought on 29.01.2024 with intent to give statutory backing for changing the eligibility in the on-going recruitment process -- Later, the amendment in the advertisement was made --  Held, this amount to change the rules of game after the game has begun – Therefore, the entire action on the part of the State Government is arbitrary and contrary to the law -- Revised eligibility criteria introduced cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process.

(Para 57, 58)

Service matter – Promotion exercise from Scale-II to Scale-III -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Fundamental defect in enquiry -- Appellant’s result was kept in abeyance in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings -- Defect was accepted by the Bank when they did not press the appeal -- Appellant should be granted all monetary benefits since the fundamental defect in the enquiry was due to no fault of the appellant – Monetary benefits granted with 6% interest p.a.

(Para 5, 6, 30, 32)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Regularization Policy of the year 1996 dated 18.3.1996 (Haryana) – Regularization of daily wages employee -- Policy of regularization is applicable in rem and benefits admissible to each individual, who is similarly placed, had to be extended by the respondent-State without any discrimination -- Such employees ought not be forced to seek identical reliefs by way of filing separate writ petitions and that a holistic approach is required to be taken by the State Agencies as well as employer to extend the benefits to all similarly placed persons irrespective of the fact whether they have taken recourse to institution of a separate litigation or not.

(Para 23-25)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Regularization Policy of the year 1996 dated 18.3.1996 (Haryana) – Regularization of daily wages employee -- Dealy and laches – Arrears of monetary benefits – Restriction upon -- Certain other persons approached this Court for seeking the benefit in the year 2014, which such writ petitions were allowed in the year 2022 -- The issue of delay and laches/ estoppel did not stand in the way of extending the said benefits, the monetary benefits restricted to a period of 38 months prior to filing of the writ petition(s) to balance the equities – Petitioners held entitled for all consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay and seniority -- However, the financial benefits restricted upto 38 months prior to the filing of the present writ petition.

(Para 24-29)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Promotion to Tracer -- Negative equality – Permissibility of – As per Rules, the post of Tracer is to be filled up to 100% by way of direct recruitment -- While referring to two communications appointing two as Tracer on promotion, the petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14, namely the discrimination – Held, Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same -- A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules -- It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality.

(Para 30, 31)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Dismissal of judicial officer – Probation -- Opportunity of hearing -- Foundation of the order dispensing with petitioner's service is the complaint filed by his former wife and the report submitted by the Administrative Judge --  Committee relied upon the report of the Administrative Judge -- Petitioner was never issued any charge sheet – Petitioner claims that he was not even supplied copy of the complaint or the statement of his former wife recorded by the Registrar General, he was called in the office of the Registrar General and was asked to give his response there and then -- In the Annual Confidential Reports with respect to years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, he was rated as 'Good Officer' -- District Judge also rated the petitioner as a 'Good Officer' -- Report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner is also without granting him an opportunity of being heard --  Substantially, it can be concluded, the report of the Administrative Judge is based on the complaint filed by the petitioner's former wife – Petitioner ordered to be reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and seniority -- However, the respondent shall have the liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

(Para 4.1)

Constitution of India, Article 309(2) – Appointment based upon Executive orders -- Law is settled that in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken.

(Para 12, 13)

Constitution of India, Article 320 -- Selection process – Increase in number of vacancies -- Public Service Commission – Role of -- Primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the selection process for ensuring transparency and merit-based recruitment -- Determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government, which is the employer -- Government’s needs evolved, and additional vacancies arose -- It is unreasonable for the KPSC to deny the Government’s request to expand the rank list to include these vacancies, particularly when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification -- Argument that such an expansion would undermine the autonomy of the KPSC is misplaced -- KPSC directed to expand the rank list under the 2014 notification to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government.

(Para 17-21)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 309 – 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana -- Compassionate appointment – Right of -- Said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness --  Three years from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right -- Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father -- Claim rightly rejected by the respondent State.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Equality – Conferred some rights upon others, wrongfully -- Effect of -- No direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable -- Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea -- The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again -- Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.

(Para 11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Recruitment process -- Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies.

(Para 42(1))

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 -- Eligibility criteria – Change in midway – Permissibility of -- Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit -- Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.

(Para 42(2))

C. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Select list – Right to be appointed -- Decision in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220  -- Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the Select List -- The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues.

(Para 42(3))

D. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 – Recruitment rules/ procedure – Deviation from – Permissibility of -- Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved -- Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility -- However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps.

(Para 42(4(5))

E. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 –  Select list – Right to be appointment -- Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment -- State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies -- However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.

(Para 42(6)

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 2(12) -- Factory – ESI contribution -- Amendment of 1989 – Effect of -- Dispute relates to demand raised by appellant Corporation for ESI contribution for the time period w.e.f. April, 1983 to April, 1984 -- Prior to Amending Act of 1989, the mandate of the statute was that the factory means any premises including the precincts employing 20 or more persons -- Number of persons employed being less than 20, the premises of the respondent would not fall within the ambit of ‘factory’ as adumbrated u/s 2(12) prior to Amending Act of 1989 – ESI Court rightly held that respondent was not covered under the ESI Act prior to 1989-the period for which demand was raised – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 13-19)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Promotion of employee – Departmental proceedings – Effect of -- Departmental proceedings can be said to have been initiated only upon issuance of the charge-memo/ charge-sheet and not prior thereto -- In case of initiation of departmental proceedings against an employee as on date of consideration of his case for promotion by the DPC, the sealed covered procedure is required to be adopted -- Said sealed cover is to be opened after culmination of the departmental proceedings.

(Para 4(ii))

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Departmental proceedings – Withdrawal of promotion – Permissibility of -- Charge-memo issued to the petitioner on 01.04.2023, whereas, the DPC had already recommended petitioner’s name for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector on 21.03.2023 -- Formal order promoting the petitioner on accrual of vacancies was passed on 02.08.2023 – Order dated 24.08.2023, withdrawing petitioner’s promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector is not in consonance with law.

(Para 4(iii))

C. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 11, 14, 16 – Departmental proceedings for minor punishment – Withholding of promotion – Permissibility of -- Charge-memo was not issued to the petitioner for imposition of major penalties under Rule 14 -- Promotion cannot be withheld on account of employer’s intention to initiate departmental proceedings for imposition of minor penalty upon an employee.

(Para 4(iv))

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Contractual employee -- Regularization of service -- Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in 2005 on contract basis -- Service of the petitioner was regularized in the year, 2012 -- Petitioner held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. Covered matter, Vikram Singh’s case 2023 :HHC: 13114 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19595.

(Para 7)

A. Service matter -- Retirement of employee -- Leave encashment – Extension of service -- Carry forward of leave encashment -- Employee retired at the age of 58 years, entitled for maximum of 300 days of leave encashment -- Employee could not apply for extension only to adjust the unutilized earned leaves as only encashment of 300 days is admissible -- Petitioner availed 29 days of leave hence, 21 days leave which is more than the 8 days leave admissible during the extension period, same is to be deducted from the total kitty of 300 days leave.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Service matter -- Delay in retiral benefits – Interest thereupon -- Petitioner retired from service after availing the benefit of extension on 28.02.2017 but her retiral benefits have been released on 27.06.2017 without there being any impediment -- Petitioner held entitled for the grant of benefit of interest on the delayed release of her pensionary benefits @ 6% per annum from the date the same became due till the actual payment of the same.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Promotion during pendency of criminal case -- DPC – Charge-sheet thereafter – Putting the result in sealed cover – Legality of -- Disciplinary/ criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court -- Sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/ charge-sheet -- Pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

-- Charge sheet was filed by CBI, after completion of investigation on 25th October, 2008, whereas the DPC to consider the promotion of Additional Commissioners of Income Tax was convened on 22nd February, 2007, wherein the sealed cover procedure was adopted qua the respondent.

-- It is thus clear that the charge sheet against the respondent was filed well after the meeting of the DPC was convened.

Hence, it could not be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC was convened -- Therefore, the move on the part of DPC to resort to the sealed cover procedure was unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law -- The ‘Sealed Cover’ wherein the assessment of the respondent was considered by the DPC was opened in court -- Letter shows that the DPC assessed the respondent to be ‘FIT’ for promotion -- Consequential steps in light of the above recommendations shall follow.

(Para 24-29)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Public appointments – Waiting list for one year – Visually impaired category -- In case the appointments are not offered to the candidates for more than a period one year, the purpose of preparation of waiting panel will be rendered useless -- It will be providing a handle to such authorities to act arbitrarily -- Respondents cannot be allowed the benefit of their own wrongs, more particularly when a serious prejudice to the right of the appellants is the consequence -- Appeal allowed, fresh advertisement qua visually imparted category quashed, respondents directed to fill up the vacancies from the waiting list.

(Para 3, 14-20)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Regularization of employee – Retrospective regularisation at par with junior -- Merely because High Court or the Supreme Court had not fixed any date for grant of benefit of regularization to the petitioners, the State Government is not absolved from its duty to grant the petitioner benefits at par with similarly situated persons -- State Cabinet has taken a decision to grant benefit of regularization to the petitioners prospectively, the same cannot be a valid reason to discriminate the petitioners.

(Para 20)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Regularization of Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) -- Intelligible differentia – All the Incumbents under the PAT, GVU and Para Teachers Schemes formed a single class, keeping in view the object behind their appointments and treatment given to them by the State Government -- Exclusion of petitioners by not conferring upon them the benefit of regularization on completion of 8/10 years of service, as has been done in the case of GVU and Para Teachers, amounts to creation of a class without there being any intelligible differentia -- Since, the respondents have already granted such benefit to the Para Teachers w.e.f. 18.12.2014, the respondents directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from that date i.e. 18.12.2014.

(Para 21, 22)

Uttarakhand Government Servants (Appeal & Discipline) Rules, 2003 --  Promotion from Chief assistant to Administrative officer – Departmental enquiry was pending at the time of consideration – Result of promotional post was kept in sealed cover – In departmental enquiry ‘Warning’ issued -- Sealed envelope of the petitioner for his promotion is not being opened by the respondents – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Appointing Authority to open the sealed envelope of the petitioner’s promotion within a period of one week, if petitioner is promoted, he shall be immediately given promotion from his due date, as per law.

(Para 1, 3-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Minor penalty -- Censure  -- Promotion – Right of -- Awarding of censure, which may be a minor penalty, is a blameworthy factor and is a reason good enough to deny promotion to an employee -- Penalty, whether it is minor or major, is inflicted upon an employee for committing misconduct and an employee, who is found guilty of misconduct, is not entitled to be promoted.         

(Para 12)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309 -- Feeder cadre – Promotional cadre – Whether PayScale can be same -- Sub Inspector is a promotion post from the feeder post of Panchayat Secretary – By revision, the pay scale of Panchayat Secretary was brought at par with the pay scale available to the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 01.01.2006 -- No revision of pay was given to the Sub Inspectors -- It is more than settled that the pay scale of promotional post has to be higher than the feeder post – Finance department rejected the proposal consecutively made by the administrative department without assigning any reason – Writ petition allowed, the respondents directed to revise the pay scale and to pay them entire arrears along with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which the arrears shall entail interest @ 9% per annum.

(Para 9-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 300A, 309 – Leave encashment – Akin to property -- Merger of U.P. Basic Education Board to State of Uttarakhand -- Leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is property -- Depriving a person of his property without any valid statutory provision would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India -- Leave encashment paid on account of unutilized leave is not a bounty -- If an employee has earned it and the employee has chosen to accumulate his Earned Leave to his credit, then encashment becomes his right -- Writ allowed, a mandamus issued commanding the respondents to pay Leave Encashment of Earned Leave to the petitioners immediately, in accordance with law.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Personal Assistant Cadre Employees’ Service Rules 2018, Rule 20 --  Procedure for Appointment by Direct Recruitment on Group ‘C’ Post Rules, 2008, Rule 5(4) – Appointment of Personal Assistant/ Stenographer -- Carry forward of posts – Procedure of -- Total 152 vacancies were advertised and only 110 candidates were selected -- 42 vacancies are still available – Respondent/ Commission has list of 1830 candidates in order of merit -- By applying the ratio of 1:4 i.e. 42 x 4=168 candidates can still be called for typing and shorthand test from the said list – Writ allowed, respondent-Commission directed to call the candidates, who fall in the list of 1830 candidates in the ratio of 1:4 whose names are there in the list after 648th candidate for supplying 42 vacancies on the post of Stenographer/Personal Assistant in the order of merit till the entire remaining 42 vacancies are filled or list of 1830 candidates is exhausted, whichever is earlier.

(Para 2, 3, 12-14)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 18(4), 22(4) – Transfer of employee on administrative ground -- Adverse material has not been confronted to petitioner/ employee – Writ petitions disposed of by permitting petitioners to make representation to the Secretary, who shall look into the matter and take decision as per law within three weeks thereafter – Status quo, qua, posting of petitioners ordered to be maintained till then.

(Para 5-7)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 18(4), 22(4) – Transfer of employee on administrative grounds -- Petitioner never confronted with the complaint – Petitioners to move a representation to the Secretary -- Till the representation is decided, the impugned transfer order stayed.

(Para 3-7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Pension for her own service – Special family pension – Right of -- Clubbing of -- Benefit of special family cannot be rejected on the ground that she is getting pension on account of her retirement – It cannot be clubbed with special family pension to which she was entitled on account of death of her husband in a terrorist attack -- Respondent directed to release special family pension.

(Para 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ – Delay and laches – Seniority list challenged after 13 years – Petitioner is seeking entitlement to agitate his belated claim on the strength of directions issued by the Court in other case -- Assertion of petitioner that he has a fresh cause of action for filing the instant petition after judgment cannot be sustained -- Unexplained delay and laches in invoking Article 226 jurisdiction has repeatedly been held to be a serious impediment for grant of relief -- Claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and cannot be entertained – Writ dismissed.

(Para 11-23)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Recovery of benefits already drawn – Permissibility of -- Ad-hoc appointment as Assistant Teacher (L.T Grade), on 20.09.1986 -- Services regularized on 07.08.1993 -- After calculating ad-hoc period Selection Grade was sanctioned on 20.09.1996 – By the impugned orders dated 08.12.2017 and 05.09.2019, respondent-State cancelled the payment of Selection Grade to the petitioner -- Writ petition disposed of, with the observations that the benefit, if any, granted to the petitioner shall not be recovered -- Amount of recovery made from the petitioner, if any, shall also be paid back to the petitioner.

(Para 2-8)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1992, Rule 11 – Unequal promotion Quota – Principle of Intelligible defferentia -- Impugned Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Director provide for 60% quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters and 40% to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Lecturers for being placed as Deputy Directors – No reasonable classification to the extent of providing unequal quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of lecturers and Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters is in clear violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- Rule 11 as amended in 2005 quashed to that extent.

(Para 12, 17-20)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 13(6) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee --  Petitioner is feeling difficulty in serving at Government ITI Dugadda, he wants to be transferred at a suitable place particularly in District Haridwar and made a representation -- Writ petition disposed of, respondent No.2 directed to take a decision on petitioner’s representation by a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of one week.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 -- RGPSM’s General Service Conditions, Clause 4 -- Appointment in Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan / SSA -- Termination of service/ contract – Non-renewal of contract -- Appellant topped the revised Merit List, leading to her appointment -- While serving complaint(s) against her : (i) not punctual in attending to her duties, and; (ii) not correctly reported with regard to the events in the hostel -- She, inter alia, frankly admits to being late on occasion, but to compensate for her late-coming, she used to sit till late evening in the office for completion of work.

-- Clause 4 makes it clear that ordinarily, for inefficiency, one month’s notice is sufficient -- The Clause also makes it clear that if someone is found to have indulged in “undesirable activities”, the Mission Director was competent to terminate such person’s services “with immediate effect”.

-- Ld. Single Judge of High Court quashed the order holding that the termination orders being stigmatic in nature, relating to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, the same could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry.

Respondents have placed themselves in a Catch-22 situation – If it is a case of termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic, then one month’s notice was required to be issued to the appellant, which was not done – If impugned order to be seen as falling under the latter part of Clause 4, it would be stigmatic -- Impugned order does visit the appellant with evil consequences and would create hurdles for her re further employment – Order of Ld. Single Judge, upheld, appellant held entitled to all consequential benefits including notional continuation in service at par with other similarly-situated employees, but with the back wages restricted to 50% -- In view of the long passage of time, liberty denied to the respondents to proceed afresh against the appellant as was granted by the learned Single Judge.

(Para 12, 30-36)

Uttarakhand Regularization of Daily Wager, Work Charge, Contract, Fixed Salary, Part-time and Ad-hoc appointed employees Rules, 2013 – Regularisation of daily wages employees – Petitioners completed more than 14 years of service -- Services of the petitioners can be regularized under Regularization Rules of 2013 -- Respondent cannot take other plea to deprive the petitioners of their right to claim regularization with the respondent-Department -- Writ petitions allowed, a writ of mandamus issued commanding the respondents to consider the case of petitioners of all these writ petitions for regularization.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification in advertisement – Recruitment Rules – Applicability of -- Bachelor degree in Agricultural Engineering added as one of the qualification for appointment to the post in question after issuance of advertisement -- Petitioner cannot claim benefit of such changed qualification, and his eligibility has to be seen with reference to the Rules as were prevailing on the date of commencement of selection process.

(Para 6)

B. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification as per rules – Subsequent amendment – Effect of -- As per the recruitment Rules in vogue at the time of advertisement, a candidate with Bachelor degree in Agriculture or possessing any qualification recognised by the State Government as equivalent thereto, alone is eligible for appointment to the post in question -- Subsequent amendment in the Rules will not improve the case of petitioner.

(Para 7)

C. Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Group-B Service Rules, 1995 -- Qualification – Permitting candidate without qualification -- Estoppel  against Public Service Commission -- Eligibility of a candidate is scrutinised at the time of interview or thereafter at the time of appointment --  There cannot be estoppel against statute -- Recruitment Rules are statutory in nature and any person, who is not qualified as per the recruitment Rules, cannot claim estoppel against the selecting body i.e. Public Service Commission by contending that after permitting him to appear in the selection process, his candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that his qualification is not as per the requirement of the Rules.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dismissal from service – Acquittal in criminal case – Right to re-instatement -- In departmental proceedings petitioner found guilty of misappropriation of 80 Urea bags and embezzlement of Rs.29,656/- and award was passed against petitioner – No appeal/ revision filed against by petitioner – Held, acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement -- No ground to interfere with impugned dismissal order.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Benefit of increments withdrawn from employee – Recovery of -- Petitioner is working as SS Master, which is a Class-III Post -- Benefit of the increments given in the year 2011, withdrawn in the year 2021 after a period of ten years – Held, no recovery can be made from the petitioner -- Any recovery done from the petitioner be refunded back to him within a period of eight weeks.

(Para 6-9)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970, Rule 2.2 (b) -- Disciplinary proceedings after retirement – Permissibility of -- No disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated after 2 years of the retirement --  Petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2020 and the chargesheet being served upon him on 02.05.2022 relating to an incident related to the year 2014 – Held, respondent-State did not had jurisdiction to serve a chargesheet, the same is set aside.

(Para 2, 10)

Service matter -- Family Pension – Right of wife – Deceased employee gave affidavit in favour of respondent no. 4/ brother’s wife for service benefits and family pension – Held, once the widow is claiming the family pension on the basis of the Rules, the Department cannot deny her benefit -- Family pension is to be admissible only to the claimants envisaged under the Rules, will not be governed by the affidavit issued by the employee concerned – Petitioner/ wife held entitled family pension and interest on the arrears @ 6% per annum.

(Para 5, 10, 15, 16)

Constitution of India, Article 142 – Civil Services examination of 2014 – Re-medical test in 2024 -- Petitioner qualified in Prelims, Mains and also the Interview -- Though the petitioner was declared to be ‘temporarily unfit’ after the medical examination dated 29.04.2015 -- Petitioner assumed that he had lost out and overlooked the chance that was provided to him on 14.07.2015, when he was called for re-examination – Court considered it appropriate to grant a limited relief, directing the respondents to re-schedule the re-medical test -- Almost a decade has passed, in the event the petitioner qualifies, he shall neither claim appointment in the 2014 Batch, nor will he be entitled to seniority in the Batch -- If he is to be given appointment, his services shall commence from the date of the appointment – Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, as such shall not be treated as a precedent in any case.

(Para 1, 11-15)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Compassionate appointment -- Principle of compassionate appointment has been put in place to ameliorate suffering that is cast upon members of a family upon the sudden death of the earning member -- Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right -- A person, claiming an appointment on such ground, has to demonstrate his relationship to the deceased person and eligibility for appointment -- Same cannot be done without placing all relevant documents before the competent authority.

(Para 7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Compassionate appointment by fraud – Termination from service -- Protection under Constitution of India – Availability of -- Fraud vitiates all proceedings -- Respondent-employees having obtained their position by fraud, would not be considered to be holding a post for the purpose of the protections under the Constitution.

(Para 2.2, 14)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 16, 21, 309 -- Appointment as constable – Denial of appointment due to pregnancy – Legality of – Now non-availability of post – Ground of -- Motherhood should never and can never be the basis for denying public employment opportunities to women – Maternity should not be seen as a barrier but as a fundamental human right of every woman -- Respondent’s plea that the vacancies of Constable in 2016 and 2018 already stand filled and therefore, the petitioner cannot now be appointed – Held, respondents having acted in a most illegal and arbitrary manner in rejecting the petitioner’s request for deferment of PET cannot now be permitted to urge that she cannot be appointed – Writ petition allowed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- -- Arrears of backwages will however, as volunteered by the petitioner, restricted to 50%.

(Para 10-15)

A. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 9, 10 -- Contractual employee -- Maternity leave -- A contractual employee, is entitled to avail the benefit of maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and she is entitled for full salary during the period she availed the benefit of maternity leave.

(Para 6)

B. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 9, 10 -- Probation -- Maternity leave -- Once, an employee completes the period of probation during the maternity leave, she is entitled for fixation of actual salary, which she gets upon confirmation.

(Para 6)

C. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 9, 10 -- Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-I, Rule 8.127 -- Order which has been passed on the basis of Rule 8.127 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-I cannot be made applicable where a female employee has available benefit of maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 -- Where there is a conflict between the Rules and Act, the Act will prevail -- A female employee, who availed the benefit of maternity leave will entitle for the service benefits, the same will include the actual salary in case, she is confirmed on the post in question during the period she availed the benefit of maternity leave.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 -- Daily wagers – Regularisation of services – Natural justice -- If the competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy -- Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances -- Eligibility of respondent no.1 for the post he holds has not been controverted -- The fact that he initially entered through the process in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not a serious issue – High Court directed the petitioners to confer the status of a regular employee on respondent No.1 – No reason to interfere, SLP dismissed -- Petitioners/ State directed to grant all the benefits, including arrears of pay and seniority, to respondent No.1 from the due date.

(Para 5-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ claiming promotion after retirement – Delay and laches -- No one can claim promotion after he/ she already stood retired from service -- Petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2018 and after a period of 06 years, the petitioner is claiming promotion -- Petition dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

(Para 17, 18)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) – Arbitration – Deposit of amount as pre-condition – Legality of -- A clause which seeks deposit of a part of the claimed amount to avail of the remedy of arbitration is one which would be illegal and unlawful as it is barring a legal remedy from being invoked without deposit of money -- No remedy can be subjected to payment of money, unless authorised by law -- Such a clause in a contract lacks legitimacy and would not be enforceable.

(Para 76)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) --  Constitution of India, Article 19, 21 -- Employment agreement -- Lock-in period of three years -- Covenants in employment contracts -- Lawful and reasonable covenants which are operative during the term of employment are valid and enforceable -- Such covenants are not in violation of the fundamental rights as provided in the Constitution of India -- Reasonable lock-in periods in employment contracts that apply during the term of employment are valid in law and do not violate Fundamental Rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India -- Disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts, are arbitrable in terms of the Act, 1996.

(Para 78)

Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004, Rule 5(c) – Constitution of India, Article 233 -- Appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judge – Eligibility criteria -- Continuous practice as an advocate – Minimum period of 7 year of practice – Exclusion of judicial service period – Practicing Advocate at the Bar of a minimum period of seven years as on the last date fixed for receipt of the applications -- There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post -- Respondent no. 4 has cumulatively more than 7 years of active practice, thus he is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Additional District Judge as per Rule 5 (c) – Rule 5(c) upheld, “Note” below clause (c) of Rule 5 (permitting counting of Judicial service of a candidate towards counting of 7 years practice as Advocate for being eligible to be appointed as Additional District Judge), declared unenforceable and struck down.

(Para 42-68)

A. Constitution of India, Article 12, 13, 226 -- Army Welfare Education Society / Private Educational  Institution – Service dispute – Maintainability of writ –

-- Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it?

-- Whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational  institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Held, High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution -- School run by the Appellant Society imparts education -- Relationship is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract -- If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element -- The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents.

(Para 42, 46)

B. Doctrine of legitimate expectation -- Features :

-- First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation;

-- Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings;

-- Thirdly, expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be treated as a legitimate expectation;

-- Fourthly, legitimate expectation operates in relation to both substantive and procedural matters;

-- Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis.

-- Sixthly, a plea of legitimate expectation based on past practice can only be taken by someone who has dealings, or negotiations with a public authority. It cannot be invoked by a total stranger to the authority merely on the ground that the authority has a duty to act fairly generally.

The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case.

(Para 48, 49)

C. Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Arbitrariness in State action -- It is clear that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action -- It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field.

(Para 49)

D. Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Schol run by Society – Applicability upon -- Even if the function being performed by a private educational institution in imparting education may be considered as a public function, the relationship between the administration of such an institution and its employees remains a contractual one, falling within the ambit of private law -- No statutory obligation on the appellant society which requires that the salaries and allowances of the respondents are to be kept at par with what is payable to teachers of Government institutions -- Appellant society, for the purposes of its relationship with its employees, cannot be regarded as a public or Government authority -- Doctrine of legitimate expectation will have no applicability to the facts of the case.

(Para 50-52)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Medical reimbursement -- Unapproved hospital -- Partial reimbursement at PGI rates – Son of the petitioner is handicapped, also a mentally challenged person suffering from severe abdominal pain/ emergency condition, shifted to the unapproved hospital and on the date of admission, he was operated upon and was discharged on the next day – Held, it would be inhuman to say employee should keep on searching the list of approved hospitals and should first go to an approved hospital or a government hospital by ignoring the developing pain and at the risk of life -- It would be not only perverse but it will also be violative of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition allowed -- Respondents directed to pay full medical reimbursement.

(Para 8-10)