Service matter – Withholding of GPF -- Employer cannot withhold the amount of GPF of an employee as it is his/her own property.

(Para 5)

Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependant to the deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 -- Ex-gratia benefits to Society employee – Registrar Co-operative Societies vide instructions dated 07.03.2007 stated ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate ground regarding financial assistance are to be disposed of under the new Rules, 2006 -- Husband of petitioner died on 21.12.2007 while in service -- Since the Rule is in existence, therefore, no divergence can be made -- Respondents directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the applicable rules and pass necessary order in terms of grant of financial assistance to the petitioner in accordance with law.

(Para 11-13)

A. Service Rules – Government Resolution – Effect of -- In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail -- There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same -- Government resolutions issued by the Administrative Department cannot have the status of a statutory rule although such resolutions may have their own effect.

(Para 25)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Maharashtra Forest Service, Group A (Junior Scale) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998, Rule 2, 3B, 6 -- Appointment of Divisional Forest Officer – Appointment by promotion from amongst officers of the Maharashtra Forest Service -- Exclusion of period of probation -- Proviso to Rule 2 is unambiguous and quite clear, i.e., the period spent on training at Government Forest Colleges and other period of probation including extended period of probation, if any, “shall not be counted towards the requisite period of service.” -- Even if the Government Resolution upgraded the post of ACF from Class II to Class I, the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules will continue to hold valid in determining the period of service -- Rules 3B and 6 of the 1988 Rules also leave no ambiguity in this behalf and in fact read in consonance and the period of probation has to be necessarily excluded from period of service – Grant of monetary benefit is a different aspect – Held, Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules, and the resolutions neither speaking about promotion to the post of DFO nor about seniority conclusively, the Proviso would operate with full force.

(Para 25-30)

Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rule 5(1)(b) -- Constitution of India, Article 233 – Appointment of District Judge through limited departmental competitive examination – Appointment above 10% Quota – Challenge to -- Any appointment beyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitive examination shall have to be considered appointment excess in quota -- No relief can be granted to the original writ petitioners in absence of those selected/appointed candidates -- High Court directed to see that 10% seats are filled up by limited departmental competitive examination on and from 1.1.2011 and if it is found that in any recruitment subsequent to 1.1.2011, the 10% quota is breached, all such posts shall be adjusted in the future recruitments. All India Judges’ Association case (2010) 15 SCC 170 relied.

(Para 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226(2) – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act, 1985), Section 25 – Transfer of Original Application/ O.A. -- Challenge to -- Territorial jurisdiction of High Court -- Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench Delhi transferred Original Application / OA pending from Allahabad Bench (Nainital Circuit Bench) to the Principal Bench, New Delhi – Order challenged in Nainital High Court, writ was allowed and order passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi set aside – Matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court referred to larger Bench.

(Para 1,6)

National Institute of Rural Development (Service) Bye-laws, Bye-law 52 -- NIRD Rules, 2011 for Regular Appointment of the Academic Staff (Appointed on Contract Basis) -- Regularisation of contract employees –Option to choose old pension scheme – Right of -- Contract employee regularised in terms of the Regularisation Rules and not an appointment on a regular basis -- Therefore, Clause (a)(4) of Bye-law 52 will not apply to respondent no.1 whose employment has been regularised under the Regularisation Rules – Regularisation Rules under which the employment of respondent no.1 was regularised do not permit the regularised employee to change his or her option from CPF to the old pension scheme -- Clause 52 of the Bye-laws cannot override subsequent statutory Rules in the form of the Recruitment Rule.

(Para 13, 14)

High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020, Rule 12, Schedule III -- Promotion for the post of Assistant Registrar – Four ACR were required to be considered – Value of uncommunicated ACR/ communicated one day before -- Uncommunicated ACR for the year 2016-17 having the grading “Good” could not have been relied upon for consideration for promotion -- Similarly ACR gradings for the year 2019-2020, the same was communicated to the petitioner on 08.04.2021, just one day before the DPC met on 09.04.2021 ought not to have been considered and the same ought to have been treated as uncommunicated ACR – Directions given for consideration of case of the petitioner for promotion afresh ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-17 and 2019-20 and thereafter the DPC/competent authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and taking into consideration the ACRs of remaining years, i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19 within a period of six weeks -- In case after fresh exercise, the petitioner is promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar, she shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits including the arrears, seniority etc. w.e.f. 09.04.2021 - the day on which the juniors came to be promoted.

(Para 6-8)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25F – Part time sweeper – Retrenchment – Re-instatement – Compensation – Employment was paltry to the extent that workman had been appointed in May, 2008 and had served till 31.01.2010, but he had completed 240 days and, thus, got the benefit of statutory protection u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Labour court awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation – Ld. Single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.1.25 lakhs, which was held to be just, adequate and reasonable – No ground for enhancement of compensation and relief of reinstatement.

(Para 1-7)

Haryana State Federation of Consumers' Co-operative Wholesale Stores -- Staff Service Rules, 1975 – Recovery after retirement from retiral due – Permissibly of -- Under the Rules, the enquiry could have been initiated only against the employee, who is in service and is drawing salary -- In case of retired employee, the enquiry cannot be initiated nor even continue after his retirement -- Punishment can only be awarded to the employee in service and not on the retired employee -- Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside -- Petitioner held entitle for the release of his dues along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its accrual till final realisation of the same.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 217 – Elevation as High Court judge from District and Session judges – Counting of period as Fast Track Court/ Adhoc Judges – Permissibility of -- Since the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized by Supreme Court for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits, the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution is not legally sustainable.

(Para 8)

Regularization Policy of the year 1993 (Haryana) --  Regularisation of employee – Deemed continuity in service – Benefit of -- Respondent-plaintiff had more than 10 years of service keeping in view the award of the Labour Court, according to which, he was reinstated in service with continuity from the year 1985 hence, keeping in view the exception carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi's case Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999 decided on 10.04.2006 qua the employees, who had 10 years of service in their credit, will be entitled for regularization – Once, a deeming fiction has been given by the Labour Court, which deeming fiction has already been upheld that the respondent-plaintiff is to be treated in service with continuity, the same continuity in service has to be considered for all intents and purposes.

(Para 1, 11, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Equal pay for equal work – Job evaluation – Though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value -- The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary -- The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions -- There could be more than one grade in a particular service -- The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.

(Para 14)

Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971, Regulation 10 – Charge-sheet for minor penalty– Removal from service -- Permissibility of – Held, once the plaintiff-respondent was not charge-sheeted for imposition of a major penalty, he could not have been removed from service.

(Para 6)

Haryana Private Colleges (Taking over of Management) Act, 1978 (26 of 1978), Section 3, 4(b) -- Appointment of Administrator – Termination of services of lecturer by Administrator – Jurisdiction of -- Any employee who stood appointed/employed before an Administrator came to be appointed, would be secure and would not have his service conditions varied – Order passed by the Administrator is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

(Para 1, 2, 11, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 310 – Death-cum-retirement gratuity -- Option to retire at the age of 60 years – Death of employee prior to  Government order seeking option – Deceased employee would have completed 60 years of his age on 30.06.2011 -- As per Government Order dated 16.09.2009, deceased would have exercised his option to retire at the age of 60 years on or before 1.7.2010, however, before he could exercise the option, unfortunately he died on 11.08.2009, infact prior to the Government order dated 16.9.2009 -- Therefore, there was no chance for him to exercise any option at all -- High Court has rightly observed that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 and would be entitled to the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity being the heirs of the deceased employee.

(Para 5)

Service matter -- Chargesheet against employee – Withholding of Pensionary benefits – Exoneration from charge – Interest on pensionary benefits after exoneration – Right of -- Trial Court decreed the suit with the direction to the respondent-department to release all the pensionary benefits of the appellant/plaintiff along with interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears – Lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree -- Judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court restored -- Regular second appeal allowed.

(Para 4, 10-12)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Regularization of daily rated employee – Juniors were regularized – Ground of -- Initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working -- These two conditions clearly missing in the case -- Appellant had no case for regularization -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3,4)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 43 -- Pay revision by Pay Commission – VRS retiree – Terminated employee – Right of – Held, VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired upon achieving the age of superannuation -- Likewise, those who ceased to be in employment, for the reason of termination, or their dismissal, etc., would not be entitled to the benefit of pay revision.

(Para 2, 39)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 2.2 (b) – Award of MACT – Recovery from driver as punishment – Chargesheet/ Show cause notice to retired employee after 4 years -- Incident relates to year 1997 and MACT award is of dated 01.06.2002 -- Counting the period of four years from the said date, the limitation period expired much before the date when show cause notice dated 10.02.2007 was issued to the appellant-plaintiff by the respondent-department for the recovery of amount by initiating departmental proceedings – Held, no departmental proceedings could have been initiated against the appellant-plaintiff for recovery of the amount – Suit challenging punishment order allowed.

(Para 8, 14-19)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Letter Patent Appeal -- Long pendency of appeal -- Appointment of Assistant Superintendent Jail – Change of condition – Candidature of the respondent rejected on the ground that he is suffering from colour blindness – Held, in the absence of any prescription in the Service Rules or even in the advertisement in that regard, it is not open to the appellants to introduce such a requirement in the process of recruitment to the said post – Ld. Single judge allowed the writ on 10.02.2016 and order of issuance of appointment letter --  Respondent attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of appeal -- Since the delay on part of this Court to decide the appeal cannot operate to prejudice the respondent/ writ petitioner and create an advantage to the appellants – Appeal dismissed, appellants directed to pay to respondent, wages for the period from the date when the impugned order was passed by the ld. Single Judge, till the date he had attained the age of superannuation of 58 years all consequential benefits.

(Para 18-21)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22(C) -- Service/ Industrial dispute matter – Public Utility Services -- Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat -- Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) does not exercise the ordinary power of a Civil Court to entertain any dispute – Jurisdiction is a creation of statue and in the absence of any such vesting, exercise of jurisdiction not conferred suffer from lack of competence, rendering the act bad & liable to be set aside -- Award of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) suffers from lack of jurisdiction and thus is illegal -- The same is thus not sustainable.

(Para 6-8)

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 54 – Family pension – Entitlement of mother -- Remarriage of widow -- Relinquishment of pension by widow in favour of the mother of the deceased employee – Effect of -- Mother will be entitled for the family pension after the re-marriage of the widow in case, the widow relinquish her right to get family pension in favour of the mother of the deceased employee.

(Para 14-17)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Competitive exam by Public Service Commission – Allocation of marks on pro-rata basis for 2 questions found wrong in answer key -- As per Clause 38(v) of the Guidelines 2017 a conscious decision was taken to allocate the marks on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions whose answer keys were found to be wrong and when all the candidates were awarded two marks (one mark each for the aforesaid two questions) -- It cannot be said that the Public Service Commission acted illegally and/or arbitrarily and/or committed any wrong – Held, Division Bench of the High Court committed a very serious error in ordering re-evaluation of only two candidates, namely, the original writ petitioner and original respondent No. 5 only – Impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ordering re-evaluation of the papers quashed and set aside.

(Para 5-7)

A. Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 1(6) -- Social welfare legislation -- ESI Act being a social welfare legislation, any interpretation which would lean in favour of the beneficiary should be given – Held, ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation and should be interpreted in such a manner so that social security can be given to the employees.

(Para 6.1)

B. Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 1(6) -- Demand notice – Number of employees – Criteria of -- On and after 20.10.1989, irrespective of number of persons employed a factory or an establishment shall be governed by the ESI Act -- Sub-section (6) of Section 1 shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 -- ESI Act shall be applicable irrespective of the number of persons employed or notwithstanding that the number of persons employed at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act.

(Para 7)

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 53, 61 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163(A), 166, 167 – Employee insured under ESI Act – Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act – Permissibility of -- Whether the insurance amount paid under the ESI Act is a “similar benefit” as the compensation which is claimed in a case where there is a Motor Vehicle accident and claim subsists so as to bar the same -- Contention that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being a subsequent Act and the provisions in Section 163(A) and 167 begin with a non obstante clause, the bar should not operate against the insured employee under the ESI Act to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act require an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench – Matter referred to larger Bench.

(Para 3-9)

A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay of 298 days in filing LPA – Condonation of delay – Clerk of the earlier counsel who prepared the writ petition misplaced the files – Application supported by an affidavit of the legal representative of the deceased workman -- Sufficient ground made out to condone the delay – Delay condoned.

(Para 1-4)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25-B, 25-F -- Retrenchment of workman – Reinstatement – Right of – Workman in service for brief period of 240 days – Reinstatement would not be the correct relief -- Grant of compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs upheld.

(Para 8,9)

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 54 (14) (b) -- Family pension – Adopted child of widow – Right of -- Definition of ‘family’ – Claim of the appellant was rejected by the respondents on the ground that children adopted by a widow of a government servant, after the death of the government servant, would not be entitled to receive family pension – Held, a child born to the deceased government servant after his death covered under the definition of family -- Entitlement of such a posthumous child is wholly distinct from a child being adopted subsequent to the demise of the government servant by the surviving spouse – Definition of the word “family” in relation to a government servant means various categories of persons coming within the nomenclature of the word “family” and all persons who would have had a familial relationship with the government servant during his lifetime -- Any other interpretation would lead to abuse of the provision in the matter of grant of family pension -- Definition is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other personal laws – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3.3, 14, 15)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Equal pay for equal work – Higher qualification, higher Pay scale -- Classification based upon the higher educational qualification for grant of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing higher qualification, upheld.

(Para 4.4)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Equal pay for equal work – Experience and qualification -- Nursing Assistants are being paid ‘Hospital Patient Care Allowance’ -- Nursing Assistants in the BSF neither have relevant experience for appointment as Staff Nurse nor they possess any educational qualification for appointment as Staff Nurse -- Finding of High Court that Nursing Assistants shall be entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurse quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Seniority of employee -- Birth in the cadre first would automatically accord the seniority over and above those who are appointed at a later date -- This principle, however, is to apply in absence of any contrary provision in the applicable service rule.

(Para 11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309, 141 – Seniority of employee -- General principle of service jurisprudence that seniority is required to be computed from the date of actual entry into a particular cadre cannot operate in a case where there is an undisturbed judicial finding that appointments were made on different dates in breach of the applicable Rules -- Appointment orders issued was found to be in breach of the provisions of Rules – Held, any incumbent, whether superannuated or not at present, has already enjoyed career related benefit as per the seniority position, they shall not be disturbed, having regard to the long time-gap between the origin of the dispute and its conclusion by this judgment -- But any officer holding the subject-post, who would have derived career improvement from the recast seniority list shall be given such benefits -- For those superannuated, notional benefits shall be given.

(Para 13-18)

CISF Rules 2001, Rule 36, 54 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Appointment in disciplined force-CISF -- Suppression of FIR u/s 323, 324 and 341 of IPC – Respondents-authorities after taking into consideration the decision in case of Avtar Singh’s case (2016) 8 SCC 47  terminated the services of the petitioner holding inter-alia that while the petitioner was appointed in CISF, a criminal case was pending against him at the time of his enrolment in the force, but he did not reveal the same and that there was deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating circumstance – No allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were attributed against the respondent authorities – Petitioner having been found to have committed gross misconduct right at the threshold of entering into disciplined force like CISF, and the respondent authorities having passed the order of his removal from service after following due process of law and without actuated by malafides, the court not inclined to exercise its limited jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution – SLP dismissed.

(Para 2, 9-14)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Lab attendant – Resignation by appointed candidate – Right of waiting list candidate -- Candidate higher in merit, was selected and joined – Upon the resignation of such candidate, the said vacancy again became available – Selection process came to an end and any vacancy, which arises thereafter, is to be filled in accordance with law by due advertisement once again and cannot be filled up from the waiting list.

(Para 11, 12)

State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, Rule 19(3), 50A(i)(a), 67(J) – Dismissal of employee -- Power of Managing Director to continue and conclude the disciplinary proceedings as if the officer continues to be in service – Held, no question of Managing Director exercising such discretion as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent had already culminated into his dismissal as per the order dated 11.08.1999 passed by the Appointing Authority -- Though the said order of dismissal was set aside by the Single Bench, the order of Single Bench had remained stayed pending the LPA filed by the Bank; and though the LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench, the said order in LPA was set aside by Supreme Court, observing that the person who hears the matter has to decide it -- Order of Appointing Authority dismissing the respondent from service after granting him opportunity of hearing was in consonance with the direction given by Supreme Court and could not be said to be arbitrary illegal or in violation of Rule 19(3) of the said Rules -- Impugned order passed by the Division Bench confirming the order passed by the Single Bench set aside.

(Para 12-14)

State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992, Rule 19(3) – Disciplinary proceedings -- Dismissal from service – Superannuation of employee -- Disciplinary proceedings concluded, culminating into order of dismissal from service on 11.08.1999 – In writ Ld. Single Bench on 26.03.2009 set aside the order of dismissal, however in LPA, Division Bench stayed the order passed by the Single Bench and said LPA dismissed on 22.04.2010 -- Meantime on 30.11.2009, the respondent attained the age of superannuation during the time, when the operation of the order of Single Bench was stayed -- Respondent could not be deemed to have continued in service, and also when he had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009 -- Thereafter, the order of Division Bench set aside by Supreme Court, again it could not be said that the respondent was continued in service, till he attained the age of superannuation -- It was only pursuant to the direction given by Supreme Court vide the order dated 25.11.2013, the Appointing Authority after issuing show-cause notice and granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent had passed the order imposing the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” w.e.f. 11.08.1999, i.e., from the date when the first order of dismissal was passed by the Appointing Authority – Order could not be said to be arbitrary illegal or in violation of Rule 19(3) of the said Rules.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(b) – Charge of taking bribe -- Contradictory enquiry report – Dismissal of employee -- After the enquiry officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner was not proved, he went on to hold the petitioner guilty – Such a contradiction within the same enquiry report is irreconcilable -- Finding of guilt has been returned only because visuals of the petitioner could be seen in the CD which the enquiry officer himself describes to be doctored or edited as the same was also found to contain visual clips which were absolutely unrelated to the event which was being inquired into – Finding of guilt cannot be sustained -- Since, the impugned orders passed by the SP, the IG and the DGP are based solely on the afore finding of guilt by the enquiry officer, as a necessary corollary, such orders would also be unsustainable and accordingly, they too are set aside.

(Para 2, 21, 22)

Constitution of India, Article 311 – Cancellation of appointment --Graduation degree not produced -- De-recognition of University -- Petitioner failed to submit his graduation degree even though detailed mark-sheets of all three years had been supplied -- On account of not submitting his graduation degree, appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled -- At the time of admission of the petitioner, Karnataka State Open University was recognized by UGC -- Petitioner could not be made to suffer on account of de-recognition of the University in the year 2014 – It cannot be said that the petitioner obtained appointment on fraudulent grounds -- Moreover, the said University has already been recognized by UGC -- Petitioner ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(Para 2, 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Salary at par with juniors -- Petitioners, who are working as Assistant Technical Officers with the respondent/University, are senior to the three employees -- Pay scales of these employees are higher than that of the petitioners which would be impermissible – Petition allowed, the pay of the petitioners would be stepped up at par with their juniors and they would also be paid arrears of pay accruing therefrom.

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Constable -- In BC Category the last selected candidate scored 26.41 marks whereas the petitioner has 26.50 marks -- Argument of respondent-State that the petitioner had refused to accept offer of appointment at Jalandhar District is not sustainable, as despite a specific direction given by Court to place on record any communication regarding non-acceptance of offer of appointment by the petitioner, no document has been placed on record -- Petitioner is duly entitled for appointment to the post of Constable under BC category in District Jalandhar -- Writ petition allowed -- Respondent-State directed to offer appointment with all consequential benefits.

(Para 5-9)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Promotion with retrospective effect – Fixation of pay – Monetary benefits -- Petitioner given promotion with retrospective effect from the date from which he was actually discharging the duties of HOD independently – Held, once he was given promotion w.e.f. 01.02.2012, it is unjustified on the part of the respondents to deny him the fixation of his pay from the back date -- Writ petition allowed, direction issued to the respondents to refix the pay and allowances of the petitioner w.e.f, 01.02.20212 in terms of the promotion order with all consequential benefits within one month and the monetary benefits be calculated and paid within the next one month.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Departmental proceedings against policeman -- Complainant in FIR turned hostile in view of the threat given by petitioner/policeman – Punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect given – Image of the police department lowered on account of the misconduct and threat in open public -- Punishment imposed upon the police officials does not suffer from any infirmity and neither it seems disproportionate to the misconduct in question -- Other delinquent official has chosen not contest the said punishment, which was imposed upon him – Held, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8-13)

A. Family Pension Scheme 1964, Rule 4 of Appendix II – Entitlement of 100% family pension to surviving widow – Initially family pension to wife and son of pre-deceased wife 50% each given – Later 50% of the family pension by defendant as step-son become aged 21 years withheld – No surviving heir from the pre deceased wife – Family Pension Scheme being a social welfare legislation, cannot by any stretch of imagination be interpreted to mean that when the share of the child born out of the first marriage ceases after attaining a particular age, such share would then go into the account of the State/defendant-department instead of the entire share going to the second wife i.e. the only surviving widow – Both the courts below held the plaintiff entitled to 100% family pension w.e.f. 1984 i.e. the date on which step-son attained the age of 21 years – No error in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below, which would warrant any interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6-13)

B. Family Pension Scheme 1964, Rule 4 of Appendix II -- Limitation – Family pension to wife and son of pre-deceased wife 50% each -- Withholding of 50% of the family pension by defendant as step-son become aged 21 years -- Suit by surviving wife for release of 50% withhold pension to her – Held it is recurring cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit -- Claim of the plaintiff would not be thwarted by limitation.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Health worker -- Registration with Council --  Requirement of – Late issuance of registration -- Appellants except one had applied for U.P. Council registration before the date of advertisement i.e., 15.12.2021 -- Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer – If it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him -- Respondent(s) directed to appoint the appellants to the post of Health Worker (Female) within a period of six weeks, if otherwise, they are found meritorious and fulfilling the other eligibility criteria and the appellants shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of their actual appointments.

(Para 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits – Rotation of quota rule -- Following questions need to be decided by a larger Bench of five Hon’ble Judges:

a. Whether the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra, 2020 (5) SCC 689 can be said to be a binding precedent in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo, 1966 (3) SCR 600 and the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy, 2004 (6) SCC 729?

b. In absence of specific statutory rules to the contrary, when the ‘rotation of quota’ rule is applicable, whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following ‘rotation of quota’ by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year?

(Para 35)

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 4, 5 – Instructions dated 04.08.2014 extending the benefit of maternity leave to the female employees of the Government of Haryana -- Contractual employee – Maternity leave benefit -- Respondents directed to grant the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioners for the period they are entitled for and the monetary benefit arising out of the said leave keeping in mind the 1961 Act as well as Instructions dated 04.08.2014 issued by the Government of Haryana.

(Para 12)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10(2)(a), 17-B, 33-C(2) -- Re-instatement with full back-wages by CGIT – Stay in writ petition – Whether the appellant shall be entitled to the full wages from the date of award of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 passed by the CGIT to the actual date of reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013? – Held, it was the employer-bank who obtained the stay against reinstatement and ultimately order of reinstatement attained the finality -- Merely because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings, the employee-appellant cannot be denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court -- Appellant shall be entitled to the full wages with all emoluments from the date of order of reinstatement i.e., 18.07.2007 to the date of actual reinstatement i.e., 23.09.2013, however, after adjusting/deducting the amount already paid under Section 17B of the ID Act -- Appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.

(Para 6-8)

Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 10 – Injury to employee – Compensation to employee -- Appellant is skilled labour, who was involved in the work of construction of hospital building -- Disability report showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58% of the limb, which corresponds with 26% whole body – Functional disability assessed as 100%, her age being 40 years and income being Rs.8000/-, 60% whereof works out to be Rs.4800/- and applying the multiplier of 184.17, as per Schedule IV of the 1993 Act, the compensation works out to be Rs.8,84,016/- -- Adding an amount of Rs.42,200/- towards medical expenses total compensation works out to be Rs.9,26,216/- rounded of to Rs. 9,30,000/-.  -- Appellant also held entitled for payment of interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of making the application till the date of actual payment.

(Para 17-23)

Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules, 1958, Rule 5(v), 6 – Cooperative Bank employee -- Wife and father of employee appointed as Directors – Deemed removal – Notice to petitioner/ employee necessary -- In terms of the Clause 6 the petitioner would have been removed from service on the same day as information was received that the employee had relatives as members of the board, but this removal would have come into effect only after due intimation to the petitioner -- This was never done and in the meantime the term of the Board of Members expired and an Administrator appointed -- Without issuing notice to the petitioner about his family members being members of the Board of Director, the orders terminating the services of the petitioner are not sustainable -- Writ allowed, impugned orders vide which the petitioner was removed from service, set aside -- Official respondents directed to take the petitioner back in service and grant him all the consequential financial benefits, as admissible under the rules.

(Para 8-10)

A. Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) – Departmental proceedings after retirement – Permissibility of -- A harmonious reading of Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) leads to only one irresistible conclusion that after an employee has retired from service there is a complete embargo on the initiation of departmental proceedings against him in respect of event(s) which may have taken place more than four years prior to the initiation of the departmental proceedings and that the date of initiation of such departmental proceedings is deemed to be the date when a charge-sheet is issued to the concerned government employee/pensioner/government employee placed under suspension.

(Para 8)

B. Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) – Quashing of departmental proceedings after retirement – Petitioner retired on 30.06.2019 and was issued a charge-sheet on 05.10.2021 through which he was sought to be departmentally proceeded against for an alleged misconduct by him between the years 1986-88 -- Alleged misconduct by the petitioner is prior to four years from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet -- Since by that time he had retired, such action on the part of the State is barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules and therefore unsustainable -- Impugned departmental proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Void ab initio appointment – Pensionary benefits -- Once the appointment is held to be illegal and void ab initio the services rendered cannot be considered/counted for the purpose of pension.

(Para 1)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 383 -- Succession Certificate – Adoption deed -- Compassionate appointment -- Whether a Succession Certificate can be treated as Adoption Deed? – Usually, a succession certificate is the key in the absence of a will -- Issuance of succession certificate does give right of succession to the claimed property of a deceased person, whereas adoption deed is a legal document wherein all rights and responsibilities, along with filiation, from the biological parent or parents are transferred to adopted parents -- A succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person, including a nominee -- Succession certificates produced by the petitioner nowhere declare him to be the adopted son of deceased -- Claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected in the absence of an adoption deed -- Moreover, there is no other document on record, like a school leaving certificate, record of a Municipal Committee etc. reflecting the name of decease entered as father of the petitioner -- Mere statement given in court by the biological father cannot be taken into consideration as he is an interested party -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 (2) (b) -- Dismissal from service -- Dispense with departmental enquiry – Connection with hardcore criminals – Ground of -- Mere allegation against the petitioner herein that he had close connection with the accused persons and had helped them, who are hardcore criminals, would not be sufficient ground to invoke Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India to dispense with holding of a departmental inquiry before dismissing him from service – Dismissal order set aside -- Open to the Department to take departmental action in accordance with law.

(Para 9-11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 (2) (b) -- Dismissal from service -- Dispense with departmental enquiry – Connection with hardcore criminals -- Observation “that no witness would come forward to depose against the petitioner as he has connections with hardcore criminals and there could be danger to the life of the Inquiry Officer, in case departmental inquiry is initiated because the petitioner has connections with hardcore criminals, who with a view to achieve their anti-social and illegal motive, can harm the life of any officer and also that the departmental inquiry might take long time and retention of the petitioner till then in the department would not be free from danger nor feasible in public interest”, would not satisfy the stringent conditions imposed of giving a reasonable explanation as to why an inquiry cannot be held before dismissing an employee -- Writ petition allowed, impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service set aside, leaving it open to the Department to take departmental action in accordance with law.

(Para 10, 11)