A. Policy of Recruitment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ for Common Eligibility Test-2022 -- Common Eligibility Test (CET) -- In the policy dt. 05.05.2022, the Common Eligibility Test was introduced to simplify and standardize the recruitment process for Government employment to Group-C posts and Group-D posts -- Consideration of all candidates who have obtained minimum marks in the CET for the skilled test and/or written test would have the effect of relegating the meritorious candidates, and would result in failure of the very objective of the policy particularly when large number of candidates in lakhs appeared for the CET and a substantial number of them had qualified in the CET written examination to the tune of 2,92,000 for the posts in question – Held, clause in the policy providing for shortlisting is in tune with the main objective of inducting meritorious candidates in Government jobs, and limiting the number of meritorious candidates by way of shortlisting would expedite the conducting of examination, evaluation and avoid unnecessary litigation by non-meritorious applicants -- Writ Petitions, dismissed.

(Para 44-56)

B. Policy of Recruitment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ for Common Eligibility Test-2022 -- Common Eligibility Test (CET) – Relevancy of subject in exam -- Contention that in the CET, testing was for only General knowledge and computer knowledge, but knowledge in subject was not tested; and so the securing of 70% marks therein for appearing in the skill test/written examination in the relevant subject for the post, cannot be permitted – Held, Commission is an expert body and is competent to decide in consultation with the State departments on what subjects a candidate is to be tested for short listing -- It is not the province of High Court to enter into the domain of the Commission and exercise the power vested in the Commission as High Court does not have the requisite expertise in that regard -- It is not the case of the petitioners that General knowledge or analytical skills tested in the CET are wholly irrelevant for appointment to the posts in question – No merit in the Writ Petitions, dismissed.

(Para 50)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ of mandamus -- Work charge service -- Pensionary benefits – Respondent No.5/ UHBVN endorsing that the period of work charge service rendered by the petitioner under the respondent No.5 from 30.08.1968 to 10.05.1974 – Writ petition disposed of by directing the respondents No.4 and 6 to consider the work charge period for the purpose of re-fixation of pension and other retiral benefits.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee on recommendation of MLA – Legality of -- Proposal of public representative has to be considered by assessing it on merit in the light of Guiding Principles and Instructions regulating the transfer of employees in consonance with pronouncements of the Court -- Impugned order of transfer passed without application of mind by the Administration Department/Competent Authority, but only on the basis of U.O/D.O Note, generated and communicated at the instance of a person having no role in Administration of Department – Transfer order quashed.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 16 -- Recruitment exam – Change of category -- General to DESM -- Permissibility of – After having participated in the qualifying examination and having failed to score the minimum requisite marks, seeking change in the category cannot be permitted -- If a candidate applies under a specific category he cannot be permitted to change his category during the selection or midway during the recruitment process.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Common Eligibility Test (CET) -- EWS (Economically Weaker Section) from General Category -- Petitioner had got himself registered, applied and appeared for eligibility test as a General category candidate -- There is a categoric condition in the advertisement that category once filled in cannot be permitted to be changed -- It is well settled that if a candidate applies under a specific category he cannot be permitted to change his category during the selection or midway during the recruitment process.

(Para 6-9)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 6.17(3) – Family pension to mother – Wife already died -- Mother died during the pendency of writ petition -- Mother of deceased employee held entitled for the grant of family pension on the date of death of her son till she died -- LRs will be entitled for disbursement of the same on furnishing necessary certificate form competent authority.

(Para 8, 9)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Rule 6.17 (Haryana) – Family pension – Karewa marriage – Family pension will be continued to the widow or widower till the death or the re-marriage, whichever occur earlier – Karewa marriage by petitioner/ widow – Petitioner not entitled for family pension.

(Para 3-5, 11-15)

Service matter -- Recovery from employee -- Opportunity of hearing -- Order imposes an employee with the penal consequence, such as recovery can only be done after giving due opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned -- No show cause notice was given before effecting the recovery, which act itself renders the recovery illegal even if the same has been done on the basis of undertaking -- Impugned orders of recovery set aside.

(Para 12-15)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Increase in age of retirement/ discharge of Anganwari workers/ helpers – Writ of mandamus – By impugned order High Court held them entitled to be continued in their engagement until attaining the age of 65 years against the existing policy of the appellant-State of discharging them upon attaining the age of 60 years – Held, existing statutory norms do not provide for uniform age limit for retirement of AWs/AHs; and it is for the State Government to decide as regards the service conditions, including the age of discharge -- No mandamus could have been issued so as to thrust a particular age of discharge -- Appeal allowed, impugned orders passed by High Court set aside.

(Para 11-13)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Recovery after retirement -- ACP benefits given on the basis of Government instructions – Thereafter Government withdrew the benefits -- Held, amount recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is not in accordance with law – Amount ordered to be refunded with 6% interest per annum.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Delay in retiral benefits -- Petitioner shall be entitled for interest on that delay -- 6% per annum interest awarded from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of its disbursal.

(Para 6, 7)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 6.17 – Family pension -- First wife died on 08.09.2006, thereafter, the husband married the petitioner -- Husband died on 11.10.2015 – Not the case of either of the parties that the son of earlier wife was minor at time of death of husband -- 50% of the pension was sanctioned and denied full pension by invoking Note-1 of Rule 6.17 (4) of Punjab Civil Services Rules which is not applicable -- Petition allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/-, petitioner held entitled for the grant of full pension/ 100% family pension w.e.f. the date of death of the husband alongwith arrears of family pension -- Arrears of pension shall carry an interest @ 6 % per annum (simple).

(Para 7-11)

Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Withholding of pensionary benefits – Pendency of complaints – Ground of -- Pension and pensionary benefits are Constitutional Rights and they can be withheld or deprived of only by the authority of law -- There was neither any judicial or criminal or disciplinary proceedings or any other statutory proceedings against the petitioner -- Mere pendency of some complaints against the petitioner cannot become a ground for deferment of pension and pensionary benefits -- Petition allowed, petitioner held entitled for benefits alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, in case amount not paid within four months, future rate of interest @ 9% per annum allowed instead of 6% -- Petitioner was earlier compelled to file a writ petition, held entitled for costs of Rs.25,000/-.

(Para 9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Civil Servant -- Whenever a dispute relating to a service matter, which includes a claim for allowances, is raised before the Administrative Tribunal, the primary duty of the Tribunal is to see what is provided by the relevant Act issued under the main part of Article 309 or the Rules issued under the Proviso to Article 309.

(Para 20)

B. Service law -- Employment – Nature of – Adjudication upon -- There are three different categories of employment;

(i) employment which is statutorily protected under labour welfare legislations, so as to prevent exploitation and unfair labour practices;

(ii) employment which falls outside the purview of the labour welfare legislations and hence, governed solely by the terms of the contract; and

(iii) employment of persons to civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State.

Any Court or Tribunal adjudicating a dispute relating to conditions of service of an employee, should keep in mind the different parameters applicable to these three different categories of employment.

(Para 23)

C. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), Section 48 -- Service Rules – Civil Servant – Claim for overtime -- Unlike those employed in factories and industrial establishments, persons in public service who are holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State are required to place themselves at the disposal of the Government all the time – In the light of the Rules, there was actually no scope for the respondents to seek payment of Double Over Time Allowance -- No benefit can be claimed by anyone dehors the statutory rules – No benefits of the provisions of Chapter VI of the 1948 Act can be claimed dehors the service rules.

(Para 24-34)

Service matter – Regular pay scale – Right of -- Petitioner was appointed as Hostel Warden in Law College on 13.10.2005, which then became the constituent institution of the University -- Thereafter, the petitioner was brought in the regular cadre of the respondent University w.e.f. 27.02.2009 as Hostel Supervisor on consolidated salary – Petitioner acquired qualification for the post i.e. graduation in May, 2010 – Regular Pay Scale was granted to her w.e.f. 15.6.2012 -- At the time of acquiring the essential qualifications, there was no vacancy -- After the creation of additional posts, the petitioners have been regularised and are being paid regular salary -- Consequently, they cannot claim regular salary from the date they acquired qualification, as on that date there was no vacancy.

(Para 2, 11)

A. Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, Rule 7(c) -- Ex gratia appointment -- Petitioner No.2/ son of deceased employee was placed in the waiting list for appointment, however, could not be offered appointment as only 5% quota of the sanctioned posts according to seniority were to be filled up and the petitioner was below in seniority list – List, which was valid only for a period of three years, expired before the turn of petitioner No.2 could come as per his seniority -- Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent State in declining ex gratia appointment to petitioner No.2.

(Para 8, 9)

B. Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, Rule 7(c) -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 -- Ex gratia appointment -- Ex-gratia financial assistance -- Employee died on 02.10.2003 while in service and at the relevant time, Rules of 2003 were in existence – Ex-gratia appointment was declined on 29.08.2007 – Option to opt for Ex-gratia financial assistance was not sought from the dependents of the deceased Government employee -- Writ petition allowed, petitioner No.1 to submit her option within a period of one month so as to seek ex-gratia financial assistance in terms of Rules of 2006 -- On receipt of such option, the respondents shall take final decision for payment of ex-gratia financial assistance to the petitioners within one month thereafter.

(Para 10,11)

Constitution of  India, Article 226 – Writ of mandamus -- Service matter -- Contractual employment – Renewal of contract – Right of -- Petitioner engaged for a specific term under an agreement and its term has expired -- As such the petitioner ceases to be in the employment of the respondents, who have taken a conscious decision, not to renew the contract -- At this stage, the respondents can neither be forced to reinstate the petitioner nor to renew the agreement.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Dismissal of judicial officer -- A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated -- Respondent in the departmental enquiry just pass on the responsibility to the inefficient and allegedly novice stenographer – Not preparing/dictating judgments, but providing a fait accompli, is completely unacceptable and unbecoming of a judicial officer – Penalty of dismissal from service imposed.

(Para 1, 12-24)

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)