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. 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. 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, 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)

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. 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)

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)

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), Section 7A, 7-I, 7Q, 14B – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Appeal -- Writ by Adjudicating Authority/ Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner – Maintainability of -- Held, Adjudicating Authority, though an Officer of the Government cannot prefer any appeal – To challenge orders passed under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 by the Tribunal, the Writ petition filed by the Adjudicating Authority/ Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is not maintainable.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Show cause notice – Non-service of – Effect of – Rule of natural justice -- In the absence of any material to show that the Show Cause Notice was served on the respondent at all, it has to be presumed that the action of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in setting the respondent ex parte and proceeding to assess damages and interest, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

(Para 23)

B. Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), Section 7I, 7Q, 14B – Quantum of damages – Power of -- Contention that under 2nd Proviso to Section 14-B of the Act, only the Board of Trustees was empowered to reduce the quantum of damages and that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, had no such power – Court disagreed with said plea – Held, as an Appellate Authority, the said Tribunal acting u/s 7-I of the Act, can exercise all the powers of the Primary Authority/ Adjudicating Authority.

(Para 30, 31)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 – Termination of service --  Involvement in FIR u/s 376/342 RPC -- Rule of natural justice – Opportunity of hearing -- Respondents without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner have terminated/dis-engaged the petitioner from the service which is palpably bad in the eyes of law as the order impugned has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice -- Otherwise also, the petitioner in the instant case stands acquitted of the charges on the basis of which he was disengaged -- Order disengaging the petitioner as SPO set aside – Services restored with all consequential benefits excluding the payment of emoluments for the period from disengagement till the date of restoration of service.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Minimum criteria for appointment -- Relaxation at the time of appointment -- Once relaxation in eligibility criteria is granted to an employee at the time of his/her appointment, he/she is deemed to have satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria and thereafter, he/she cannot be asked to seek relaxation in qualification at each stage of his/her career progression, unless the higher post prescribes a different qualification/criteria -- It is not open to the respondent-University to deny to the petitioner consideration to higher scales of pay on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained 55% marks in her Master’s Degree at the time of her appointment as Assistant Administrative Officer.

(Para 18)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ jurisdiction – Service matter -- Interference in finding in Enquiry report -- In writ jurisdiction, Court cannot go into the sufficiency of evidence on the basis of which the Inquiry Officer has given his findings, yet, it is open to the Court to interfere in the findings of the Inquiry Officer if the same are based upon no evidence or if the said findings are based upon irrelevant material.

(Para 14)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Criminal case against employee – Termination of services -- Acquittal in criminal case – Mere acquittal will not confer on an employee a right to claim any benefit including reinstatement -- However, if the charges in the departmental inquiry and the criminal Court are identical or similar, then the matter acquires a different dimension -- Acquittal in the criminal proceedings was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, it would be open to the Court to exercise its power of judicial review and interfere in the findings of the disciplinary inquiry.

(Para 19)

C. Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, Rule 27 (2) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Criminal case against employee – Termination of services – “tried and acquitted” -- Discharge by Criminal Court – Charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are similar in nature -- Sanction from Inspector General not sought -- Petitioner may not have been tried by the criminal Court, but he has been discharged and exonerated of criminal charges so his case stands at the higher pedestal than acquittal, particularly when the petitioner has been discharged on merits and not on technicalities -- Dismissal of petitioner from service becomes unsustainable in law -- Termination order set aside, with back wages of 50%.

(Para 20-29)

D. Termination form service -- Re-instatement – Backwages – Even if an employee has succeeded in establishing that his dismissal from service is illegal, he may be entitled to reinstatement, but it is not necessary that he should be given full back wages.

(Para 27)

A. Service matter -- Once the disciplinary proceedings have already been concluded by awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement and recovery, the same cannot be reopened on the basis of conviction/ sentence awarded by the criminal Court.

(Para 12)

B. Service matter -- Dismissal order against dead person -- A dead person cannot be punished -- Once a government employee, who dies during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be proceeded after his death and the same principle can be followed against the State Government/Corporation Employees – Dismissal order set aside, petitioner held entitled for all the consequential benefits.

(Para 10-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dis-membership from Bar association – Writ jurisdiction -- There is no public law element involved in the dispute between a member of the HP High Court Bar Association such as the petitioner and the said Association, and since the said Association is unregistered society, merely because its members are Advocates who appear in the High Court and assist in the administration of justice, it cannot be said that the writ petition against its office bearers in their personal capacity is maintainable.

(Para 4, 24)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee – Right of employee -- Transfer is an incidence of service and any employee can be transferred on administrative reasons and there is no vested right of an employee to seek posting of his own choice -- However, the aforesaid is not an absolute Rule and is subjected to various exceptions which cannot be put in any straight jacket formula -- Every case has to be seen according to its own facts and circumstances -- Petitioner is 70% handicapped and his wife is suffering from last stage of Lung Cancer -- Impugned order set aside, respondent-Nigam is at liberty to pass a fresh order after considering posting the petitioner near his house at Kaithal which may be a Non-Public Dealing Office.

(Para 7-9)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Deemed retirement – Rule of natural justice -- Petitioner’s date of birth ordered to be changed by Corrigendum dated 23.08.2014 as (1.6.1968) instead of (1.3.1965) in the tentative seniority list – Retirement date would be 31.05.2026, whereas petitioner retired on 28.02.2023 – No show cause was issued to the petitioner and she was not called upon to state or submit her response as to why she be not retired deeming her to superannuate w.e.f. 28.02.2023 -- Impugned notification is bad as it has been passed by the department without adhering to the principles of natural justice, quashed and set aside.

(Para 2, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer on recommendation of MLA – Challenge to – No malafide against the Member of Legislative Assembly alleged -- Fact that the petitioner has remained posted District Mandi for nine years, he cannot have any ground to raise grievance against the impugned transfer order.

(Para 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Censure to employee -- Delay in retiral benefits – Interest thereupon – Promotion – Right of -- Since in the said disciplinary proceedings, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet have not been proved and the petitioner has only been ordered to be censure, therefore, the petitioner is held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed payment of retiral dues and his case is liable to be considered by the respondents for grant of promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service and also for promotion from the date, when persons junior to him were promoted with all consequential benefits.

(Para 7)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25FF – Transfer of Undertaking/ Company – Retrenchment compensation – Requirement of -- In case service of the workman is not interrupted by such transfer and terms and conditions of service applicable after such transfer are not in any way less favourable to the workman and new employer is legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment compensation on the basis his service has been continuous, there shall be no requirement of notice u/s 25-FF of the Act nor any compensation in lieu of retrenchment  -- Three conditions specified in the proviso are to be satisfied -- Employees can claim compensation against the transfer, if the three conditions remain unsatisfied.

(Para 16-20)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(k) – Industrial dispute – Transfer of Undertaking -- Petitioner-company while making its worker apprised of the factum with regard to proposed transfer/sale, specifically assured workmen of the petitioner-company that upon transfer they would become workmen/employees of HFL-transferee company with continuity of service on the conditions which in aggregate would be similar and in any case would not be less favourable to the existing conditions on which they are employed with the petitioner -- No dispute exist interse petitioner and its workers – Merely by submitting demand notice, respondent-union cannot be permitted to claim that “industrial dispute” exist interse petitioner and workmen.

(Para 25-28)

C. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(k), 10(1) -- Industrial dispute -- Demand Notice – Reference – Duty of Authority -- Appropriate Government, while considering/ making reference in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act, requires to apply its mind to ascertain whether industrial dispute, if any, exists or not – Firstly, authority needs to form an opinion that industrial dispute exist, only thereafter, it can proceed to make reference -- Authority cannot delve into the merits of the dispute, but before arriving at a conclusion that industrial dispute exist, if any, in the parties, authority needs to form an opinion on the basis of material adduced on record by the parties.

(Para 29-38)

Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Department, Patwari Mohal (Class-III Non-gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules 1992, Rule 15(A), (B) – Seniority of Patwaris -- Seniority list was drawn on 7.01.2000 – Appellants are deemed to have knowledge of the seniority list, their seniority positions as well as the principle on which the seniority list was drawn -- For more than twenty years, the seniority list was accepted and acted upon -- Promotions had also been made on the basis of the seniority list – No cogent reasons given for not assailing the seniority list within a reasonable period – Re-drawal of seniority list after more than twenty years would not just affect a person or two but the seniority positions of more than 45 persons would be upset -- Settled seniority position could not be unsettled.

(Para 3, 4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in retiral benefits -- Interest thereupon -- Either before or after the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental/ criminal proceedings were pending against him, therefore, his retiral benefits were required to be released within a reasonable time after his retirement --  Interest @ 6% per annum allowed, on the delayed payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 01.01.2023 (after two months of his retirement) till the actual date of payment.

(Para 8-10)

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (III of 1978), Section 7 – Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 40 -- Resignation by employee -- Acceptance of resignation – Non-communication thereof -- Withdrawal of resignation – Effect of -- As per service jurisprudence, the employment is terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority -- Appellant, tendered his resignation letter on 10.10.2017 and this resignation letter came be accepted on 14.10.2017 – Resignation was withdrawn vide letter dated 25.10.2017 by posting said letter on 03.11.2017 -- Non-communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation inoperative provided, there is, in fact, an acceptance before the withdrawal -- It is not open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority -- Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40 of the Rules does not impose any guidelines for acceptance of the resignation upon the management – Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant about withdrawal of resignation before communication of its acceptance does not hold water – Appeal dismissed. North Zone Cultural Centre’s case, (2003) 5 SCC 455 relied.

(Para 4, 21-24)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Removal from service – Leave encashment – Right of -- Leave encashment is admissible only at the time of retirement and not at any time before attaining the age of superannuation -- An employee, who has been removed from service, is not entitled for the grant of leave encashment – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7-11)

Service matter – Correction in date of birth – If a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service.

(Para 11)