Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Constable – Cancellation of candidature -- Criminal case u/s 498-A IPC -- Acquittal in -- Effect of -- Appellant applied for the post of Constable found to be meritorious and eligible to be appointed as Constable -- In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offence u/s 498A of IPC earlier -- Therefore, as such there was no suppression on the part of the appellant in not disclosing true and correct facts -- Appellant came to be acquitted for the offence u/s 498A of IPC, 7 years before he applied for the post of Constable – Candidature of appellant restored -- Respondent(s) directed to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to be meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable – Appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment only.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Daily wager – Pensionary benefit to wife -- Daily-wager period as qualifying period -- Services of husband of petitioner regularised w.e.f. 10.05.1993, later expired on 26.02.2017 – Contention that petitioner-wife is entitled to receive the revised pensionary benefits by treating the services rendered by her husband prior to his regularization as qualifying service in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Kesar Chand’s  case AIR 1998 (Punjab) 265 – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice in the light of the aforenoted judgment and other relevant material within a period of four months.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Advertisement for appointment – Relevant date for qualification -- Respondent no.1 acquired the qualification on 19.12.2018, whereas the last date of submission of application was 18.08.2018 – On the date of interview, i.e. 25.02.2019, the respondent No.1 had already acquired the qualification – Contention that deemed to have acquired the qualification in July, 2018, i.e. prior to the date of advertisement is without merit – Cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application, Ashok Kumar Sonkar’s case (2007) 4 SCC 54 relied.

(Para 5-11)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII, Rule 7.3 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(2) – Conviction in criminal case – Dismissal from service – Re-instatement after conviction set aside – Pay and allowances for dismissal period -- No departmental proceedings were initiated against him – Petitioner held entitled, disputed period to be treated as duty period with all consequential benefits -- Arrears of salary etc. for the said period be released to the petitioner, within a period of three months failing which, the amount due shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment.

(Para 8-11)

A. Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3(5), 10, 19 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 100 -- Death/ injury to employee -- Compensation to employee -- Jurisdiction of civil Court – Substantial question of law -- Whether provisions of Section 3(5) and 19 the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, bar jurisdiction of civil Courts to entertain a suit for damages/compensation on account of death or injury suffered by an employee during the course of employment – Held, civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages/compensation with respect to an injury or death of an employee, if no claim for compensation before a Commissioner under the Act of 1923 has been instituted in that regard.

(Para 12-14)

B. Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3(5), 10, 19 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 100 -- Death of employee -- Compensation to employee -- Suit for recovery of compensation -- Assessment of damages – Courts below assessed the damages on the basis of principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Keeping in view the age, income and number of dependents of the deceased and by applying adequate multiplier of ‘14’, an amount of Rs.20,15,600/- was awarded as compensation, to be paid by the Insurance company along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till its realisation – No exception can be taken to the assessment of compensation on the basis of principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as done by the Courts below. Paramjit Kaur’s case 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 772 (P&H DB) relied -- No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8, 14-17)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Daily wages period – Qualifying period for pensionary/retiral benefits -- Writ of mandamus seeking direction to respondents to count the daily wage as Special Police Officer (SPO) service of the petitioners, rendered before their respective regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary/retiral benefits as the same benefit has been granted by High Court in other writs -- In this regard, a legal notice has been served upon the respondents – Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide legal notice within a period of six months.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Society laws -- Appointment of Chowkidar – Appointment made without advertisement -- Merely because approval has been granted to the appointment by the Assistant Registrar cannot justify an appointment which had been carried without notice to the public at large – By impugned order appointment set aside -- No merit in petition warranting interference – Petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226, 309 – Disturbance in seniority – Opportunity of hearing -- Petitioner was initially working as UDC in field cadre and thereafter adjusted in the head office – Impugned order passed after a representation had been received against the change of cadre of the petitioner to head office -- Petitioner had not been issued any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside -- Respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order after issuance of notice along with furnishing a copy of representation and by affording an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Public appointment – Registration of FIR – Effect of – FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence – Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, effective from the date the candidate immediately lower to her in the merit of selection was appointed -- Petitioner shall also be, accordingly, entitled to all service benefits including seniority and pay fixation on notional basis -- However, petitioner will not be entitled to arrears of salary upto the date she actually joins.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Public appointment – Registration of criminal case -- Induction of a term in the appointment letter; to the effect that if a criminal case is registered then the appointment would be denied, would be totally without any legal sanction.

(Para 6)

Compassionate appointment – Qualification – Requisite date -- Qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment is considered.

(Para 6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Compassionate appointment – Concession not a right -- Appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms -- Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

(Para 6)

B. Compassionate appointment -- Object of -- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment -- Whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis -- Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

(Para 7)

C. Compassionate appointment to married daughter – Right of – Effect of delay -- Claim rejected on 18.08.2011/ 23.4.2013 – Respondent-daughter cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother -- Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.

(Para 2.1-2.3, 7.1)

A. Compassionate appointment to daughter – Wife already employed -- Widow of the deceased employee was serving in the Kerala State Health Services Department and, therefore, as such was not eligible and/or entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Government employment -- Compassionate appointment – Object of -- Concession not a right -- For all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms -- Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right -- Whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis -- Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

(Para 8, 9)

C. Compassionate appointment to daughter – Application after 14 years of death – Case rejected after 24 years of death – Held, after a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground -- If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.

(Para 9.1)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10, 33(2)(b) -- Termination of employee with approval of Industrial Tribunal – Maintainability of reference -- On conclusion of the departmental enquiry services were terminated -- Termination was the subject matter of the approval application before the Industrial Tribunal in an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act – On appreciation of evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal approved the order of termination – Held, fresh reference u/s 10 of the I.D. Act challenging the order of termination was not permissible.

(Para 5.1)

A. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions, Etc.) Rules, 1993, Rule 5(viii), 10, 13, 14 -- Absorption of Aided School employee in State service – Undertaking by employees -- Leave encashment benefits -- Leave encashment is part of salary – State cannot shrug its responsibility to shoulder its part of the responsibility to pay the appellants the share of leave encashment benefits, and hide behind either Rule 5 (viii) or the undertaking executed by them -- Appellants are held entitled to privilege leave entitlement benefits -- Such benefit shall be calculated from the date they entered the service of the establishment till the date of their absorption, by the State, in 2016 -- State shall pay the benefits due to the extent of 70%, and the balance 30% shall be payable by the management establishment – Interest @ 10% from the date(s) of their entitlement, till the date of payment awarded.

(Para 21, 23)

B. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions, Etc.) Rules, 1993, Rule 82 -- Absorption of Aided School employee in State service – Gratuity – Liability of Aided School/ Establishment -- Scheme of the 1993 Rules, categorically cast the liability to pay gratuity on the employer, i.e., the aided establishment – Neither has Rule 82 changed, nor has any other material been brought to the notice of the court, to say that the management are absolved of their liability to pay gratuity, upon termination of their relationship with the appellants as their employers -- Rule 82 is a condition of grant, which meant that the management establishment was conscious and aware of its liability when it applied and was granted aid, under the 1993 Rules -- Therefore, it cannot escape its liability on that score -- Respondent-Management to pay the amount of gratuity, to the appellants till the date of order of absorption, by the State -- Interest @ 10% from the date(s) of their entitlement, till the date of payment awarded.

(Para 22, 23)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25-B -- Labour law – Termination of Watchman in 1992 -- Re-instatement after 20 years – Back wages -- Court finds no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court and the single judge in directing the appellant’s reinstatement -- Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years -- Denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him, although the delay is attributable to the judicial process -- However, the respondent management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in its litigative proclivity -- Appellant held entitled to backwages for a period of two years immediately preceding, i.e., from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022 at current rates.

(Para 14, 15)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Arbitrariness violates Article 14, 16 -- State is bound by the fundamental rights of its employees under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India -- Arbitrariness violates the right to equality under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 12)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, Rule 25(2) – Resignation/ appointment after seeking permission -- Resignation from service may entail forfeiture of past service -- However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Rules carves out an exception, clarifies that a resignation with proper permission to take up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service -- Respondent was selected through Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), while he was still in service of the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, which is also an entity fully controlled by the State of Rajasthan -- Respondent having retired after working for about 26 years, the Petitioner-State cannot raise the question of proof of prior permission before resignation, more so when the appointment had been made through the RPSC to a Government post -- It is to be deemed that there has been disclosure of past service and the application has been made through proper channel by obtaining the requisite approvals -- It is to be presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary could be established by the State.

(Para 23-26)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay of six years in filing the Writ Petition – Limitation -- Laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Relief being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled – Pension is a lifelong benefit, denial of pension is a continuing wrong -- Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints.

(Para 26-27)

D. Interpretation of pension rules – It is settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee.

(Para 28)

Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Sections 3, 4, 20 – Injury to employee – Permanent disability – Medical report -- Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded Rs. 3,74,364/- towards the compensation taking the permanent disability as 60% relying upon disability certificate of 2009 issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer -- High Court set aside the order passed by the Commissioner relying upon medical report dated 09.11.2017 (i.e. appellant has not suffered any permanent disability) given by Medical Board constituted on application of employer – Held, injured employee examined after a period of approximately nine years from the date of accident, employer ought to have made such a request before the Commissioner at the earliest opportunity – In pursuant to the earlier order passed by the High Court, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by the respondent, appellant has already withdrawn 50% of the amount, i.e., Rs. 3,76,236/- -- Appellant held entitled to Rs. 3,76,236/- by way of compensation with interest, which the appellant has already withdrawn, to meet the ends of justice – Rs. 3,76,236/- withdrawn by the appellant treated as full and final settlement of the claim.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre and Service) Rules, 1975 -- Superannuation of employees – Retiral and terminal benefits -- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to go into the question of law as raised by the parties, since all the appellants have superannuated -- Appellants give up their claim for arrears and that they restricted their claim only insofar as the terminal benefits and pension as payable to them – Appeals disposed of with a direction to the respondents to calculate terminal benefits on the basis of the orders passed by the learned CAT dated 26th May 2008 and 7th July, 2010 as the learned CAT order dated 26th May 2008 was not challenged by the respondent-Union of India and has, therefore, attained finality -- Pension would be paid to the appellants w.e.f. 1st January 2023 -- Appellants held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the terminal benefits payable to them from the date of their superannuation till the date of actual payment.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004 – Appointment / Promotion as District Judge – Direct recruitment – Jump promotes --  Promotion – Right of -- Issuance of Draft gradation list – Challenge to -- Writ Petition, as filed, ought not to have entertained on draft gradation list calling for objections – No error in the administrative decision taken by the High Court in facilitating the issuance of the impugned communication calling for objection on the premise that eligible officers will have to be fitted against the vacancies for the period from 1.10.2004 to 31.12.2008 -- It is the fair acknowledgment on the part of the High Court to redeem the mistake committed in not promoting the officers at the appropriate time -- One cannot withhold the due promotion of the promotes till the date of recruitment of the direct recruits or appointment of the jump promotes -- High Court and the State Government directed to give effect to the impugned draft gradation list insofar as the appellant alone, within a period of 12 weeks.

(Para 10-13)

A. Constitution of India, Article 310, 311 -- Departmental proceedings – Acquittal in criminal case -- Reinstatement in service – Right of -- A departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding -- Fundamental difference between the two is that whereas in a departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of “preponderance of probabilities”, in a criminal court the prosecution has to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt” -- The two forums run at different levels -- Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 310, 311 -- Departmental proceedings – Acquittal in criminal case – Benefit of doubt -- Reinstatement in service – Right of -- By the impugned order, the Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge which had allowed the writ petition of the respondent, quashing his dismissal from service – Acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt” – Appeal allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside.

(Para 1, 14)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Termination of employee – Departmental enquiry – FIR -- Mere registration of an FIR 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 a delinquent employee.

(Para 7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Termination of employee -- Dispensed with departmental enquiry -- Adequate reasons have to be given in the order of dismissal as to why it would not be reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry.

(Para 7)

C. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Dismissal of employee -- On perusal of impugned order of dismissal, it is apparent that no reasons whatsoever have been recorded to show as to why it is not possible to hold an inquiry -- A mere observation that the conduct of the petitioner is not good for credibility of the police department and he does not deserve to be a good public servant in future, 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.

(Para 8, 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963, Rules 2(a), 3, 6, 7 -- Allotment of land to Disabled ex-serviceman – Right of – Internal departmental communication – Reliance upon -- Letter written by the Secretary of the Soldier Welfare Department to the District Collector, on 19.03.1971 for allotment of land -- Rules contemplate that if the possession is not taken within 6 months, the allotment shall be deemed to have been cancelled – Held, firstly, the inter-departmental communication dated 19.03.1971 cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment -- Alternatively, even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, the writ petitioner could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-servicemen -- Disabled ex-serviceman had not taken any action for almost 27 years after the so-called letter of allotment during his life time – Writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral motives -- High Court had gone out of the way to order possession of land which was never proceeded with letter of allotment in favour of the writ petitioner -- Appeal allowed, order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 13-18)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25F, 25FFA – Closure of business -- Bonafide of Management -- Retrenchment of employees -- Re-employment thereafter – Continuity of service with backwages – Right of -- 55 drivers/employee went on strike over claiming pay hike and permanency of casual employees -- Soon after employees joined services, appellant through individual letters ‘retrenched’ the services of all 55 employees, on the ground of closure of business – Later, appellant started offering re-employment to all employees on new terms and conditions – Retrenchment of all drivers followed by an offer of re-employment on new terms and conditions was not bona fide -- Once the orders of retrenchment set aside, the workmen naturally became entitled to continuity of service with order of back wages.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25F, 25FFA –Constitution of India, Article 136 – Closure of business -- Retrenchment of employees -- Setting aside of -- Backwages – Right of -- Whether award of 75% back-wages to employees was justified, after their retrenchment orders were set aside – Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence directed reinstatement of the employees with only 75% back wages -- Whether a workman was gainfully employed or not is a question of fact, and the finding of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court, cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court in exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 18)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33C(2) – Constitution of India, Article  226, 227 -- Labour law -- Recovery of wages – Writ Court’s duty -- Labour Court rejected application u/s 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 preferred by the workman – Ld. Single Judge without any discussion and/or recording any specific findings on the merits of the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application, allowed the writ petition – Held, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the writ petition preferred by the workman on merits and ought to have given some findings on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application -- Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside -- Matter remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide Writ Petition afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.

(Para 2.1, 4.2, 5)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33C(2) – Labour law -- Correction in date of birth – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Issue involved relates only to the correction of the date of birth -- Jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted, as this is not a case relating to enforcement of a right or an obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 – Recruitment of driver – Long pendency of petition – Changed circumstances – Compensation in lieu of appointment -- High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to appoint the private respondent/ original petitioner as Driver with seniority as per his merit position without any back wages – Initial recruitment 14 year back – At present no post of driver available -- All the subsequent appointments are now being made on contractual basis and through contractors -- As on today, the age of the respondent No.1 would be approximately 49 years -- Retirement age of the driver is reported to be 55 years -- If the respondent No.1 is to be appointed now as driver, he will have to clear the driving test to drive the bus on the road – Held, at this stage, the actual appointment of respondent No.1 is not possible -- Rs.7.5 lakhs awarded as compensation with 6 per cent interest from September, 2013 onwards till the actual payment.

(Para 2-5)

A. Army Rules, 1954, Rule 14(b) -- Disability pension – Delay in medical examination -- Question of entitlement of soldier to disability pension cannot be determined on the basis of medical examination conducted 20 years after his discharge.

(Para 15)

B. Army Rules, 1954, Rule 13(3) III(v) 14(b) -- Disability pension – Disability related to army service -- Medical Expert opinion -- Discharge was on administrative grounds and not medical grounds -- Mere fact that an ailment or disease may have arisen in service does not mean that the ailment or disease is attributable to service conditions -- Review Medical Board only assessed the extent of the disability of the Respondent and the approximate duration of the disability, but not the cause thereof -- Reliance would necessarily have to be placed on expert medical opinion -- Tribunal patently erred in law in proceeding on the basis of a misconceived notion that any ailment or disability of a soldier, not noted at the time of recruitment but detected or diagnosed at the time of his discharge or earlier, would entitle the soldier to disability pension on the presumption that the disability was attributable to military service, whether or not the disability led to his discharge, and the onus was on the employer to prove otherwise, which the Appellants in this case had failed to do – Claim of the Respondent for disability pension should not have been entertained and that too, 20 years after his discharge -- Impugned judgment and order is set aside.

(Para 23-27)

Armed Force Services -- Pension Regulations, 173 -- Entitlement Rules, 1982, Rule 12 -- Military service – Accident after reaching leave station -- Disability pension – Entitlement of -- Two days after the respondent reached the leave station, he met with an accident on a public road -- Absolutely no nexus between the Military service and injuries sustained by the respondent -- Not even a causal connection -- Hence, the respondent not entitled to the disability pension.

(Para 10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Adverse remarks in ACR – Reliance upon -- Nothing has been placed on record that the annual confidential report were ever served upon the petitioner for her comments -- These reports cannot be taken into consideration.

(Para 14)

B. Haryana Government Regularisation Policy dated 1.10.2003 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 309 -- Appointment on adhoc basis – Regularisation of – Pensionary benefits – Right of -- Petitioner has rendered more than 25 years of service whereas, a regular employee, who has served for 10 years, becomes entitled for the grant of pension -- Petitioner retired in 2009, direction issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regular employee w.e.f. 01.10.2003, which benefit has already been extended to not only similarly situated employees but even to the juniors of the petitioner – Petitioner is before High Court for the last 10 years waiting for the pensionary benefits held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum as the arrears to be paid to her from the date the petitioner file the petition i.e. 08.05.2012.

(Para 29-31)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – Doctrine of reasonableness -- Where an Act or the statutory rules framed thereunder left an action dependent upon the opinion of the authority concerned, by some such expression as ‘is satisfied’ or ‘is of the opinion’ or ‘if it has reason to believe’ or ‘if it considered necessary’, the opinion of the authority is conclusive, (a) if the procedure prescribed by the Act or rules for formation of the opinion was duly followed, (b) if the authority acted bona fide, (c) if the authority Itself formed the opinion and did not borrow the opinion of somebody else and (d) if the authority did not proceed on a fundamental misconception of the law and the matter in regard to which the opinion had to be formed -- Courts will not readily defer to the conclusiveness of the authority’s opinion as to the existence of matter of law or fact upon which the validity of the exercise of the power is predicated -- Doctrine of reasonableness thus may be invoked -- Where there are no reasonable grounds for the formation of the authority’s opinion, judicial review in such a case is permissible.

(Para 28-30)

B. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – Court can inquire whether the facts and circumstances so found to exist have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the power is to be exercised.

(Para 34)

C. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – Court can interfere if the constitutional or statutory term essential for the exercise of the power has either been misapplied or misinterpreted -- The Courts have always equated the jurisdictional review with the review for error of law and have shown their readiness to quash an order if the meaning of the constitutional or statutory term has been misconstrued or misapplied.

(Para 35)

D. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – It is permissible to interfere in a case where the power is exercised for improper purpose -- If a power granted for one purpose is exercised for a different purpose, then it will be deemed that the power has not been validly exercised.

(Para 36)

E. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Judicial review -- Action against employee -- Opinion of Authority – Grounds which are relevant for the purpose for which the power can be exercised have not been considered or grounds which are not relevant and yet are considered and an order is based on such grounds, then the order can be attacked as invalid and illegal -- On the same principle, the administrative action will be invalidated if it can be established that the authority was satisfied on the wrong question.’

(Para 37)

F. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 -- Assam Rifles Regulation, 2016, Regulation 107(c), 108 – Assam Rifles Manual, Rule 24 – Four red ink entries – Discharge from service -- Entry 1 (1996) For staying back to take care of his ailing mother – ‘without sufficient cause over staying leave granted’. Sentenced to 14 days of rigorous imprisonment with deduction in salary -- Entry 2 (1998) For being on the way out to make a phone call, but stopped before he could leave the compound – “visited out of bound areas as specified in unit BRO Part I Ser No 202 dated 30 Aug 96 without permission from his superior officers”. Sentenced to 28 days of rigorous custody and 14 days of Military Custody -- Entry 3 (1999) For losing his luggage while coming back from home – “lost his identity card bearing machine No. 078550 by neglect the property of the Government issued to him for his use”. Sentenced to 28 days of rigorous imprisonment and 14 days of detention in AR custody -- Entry 4 (2004) For playing cards all alone by himself – ‘to obey unit standing orders and was found Gambling in unit line’. Sentenced to 28 days of rigorous imprisonment and 14 days of fine -- Having regard to the nature of the misconduct alleged against the appellant, ends of justice would be met if order of discharge set aside and treat the appellant to have been in service till the time, he could be said to have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension – Nothing on record to indicate that the nature of the misconduct leading to the award of four Red Ink entries was so unacceptable that the competent authority had no option but to direct his discharge to prevent indiscipline in the force -- Order of discharge against the appellant set aside -- Benefit of continuity of service for all other purpose shall be granted to the appellant including pension.

(Para 39, 40)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Online transfer Policy of Haryana – Interpretation of clause -- In the event of completion of a tenure of 5 years at a given zone, an employee shall have to mandatorily participate in the online transfer policy -- Interpretation of the aforesaid clause cannot be given to mean that State Government is prohibited from effecting a transfer of the employees at all prior to a period of five years stay in a zone.

(Para 5-7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee – Power of Court to interfere -- Prerogative of the State to deploy its resources cannot be steered by the Court -- Same is the primary domain of the Executive unless exercise of such executive discretion is infested with malice, caprice, arbitrariness, inherent lack of jurisdiction or as a means of inflicting punishment or satisfy the judicial conscience about being gross abuse of the authority of law or complete disregard to the Rule of Law -- No such aspects have been established or argued -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

Service law – Promotion matter -- Violation of Statutory service rules -- Principle of estoppel and acquiescence – Applicability of -- Ld. Single Judge of High Court held, that the statutory rules would prevail and must be strictly adhered to and allowed the writ petition, directed the BHU to carry out the exercise for promotion afresh -- Whereas, the Division Bench proceeded to set aside the judgment applying the principle of estoppel and acquiescence over and above the eligibility conditions -- Appeal against -- Held, it is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law – There can be no estoppel against law -- If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law -- Appeals allowed.

(Para 22-34)

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (66 of 1949), Section 11(1) -- Dismissal from service – Non-examination of vital witnesses – Setting aside of punishment order -- Allegation that respondent along with another Constable made a telephone call to the Senior CRPF Officers and Additional DIGP, impersonating himself as a Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha for getting the transfer order cancelled -- In the departmental proceedings, the respondent was found guilty and was awarded the punishment of removal from service – Enquiry Committee had not recorded the statement of the then Additional DIGP, Constable and the owner of the S.T.D booth, which were very relevant for the case – Even on remand, the said three witnesses were not examined – In the absence of the examination of these three vital witnesses, the Appellate Authority found that the charges against the respondent were not fully proved however modified the punishment of removal from service and the respondent was awarded 28 days confinement to Quarter Guard with forfeiture of pay and allowances – Respondent/employee thereafter preferred the petition before the High Court -- Taking into consideration this aspect, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and the Division Bench of High Court affirmed the same -- Appeal against dismissed.

(Para 5-13)

Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 16.24 -- Constitution of India, Article 311 (2) (a) (b) -- Dismissal of employee – Registration of FIR – Ground of – Procedure of – Departmental Enquiry – Requirement of -- Mere registration of a FIR 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 a delinquent employee – In case of conviction, the situation is altogether different -- Adequate reasons have to be given in the order of dismissal as to why it would not be reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry – In impugned order of dismissal, it is apparent that no reasons have been recorded to show as to why it is not possible to hold an inquiry -- Writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside, leaving it open to the Department to take departmental action in accordance with law.

(Para 5-11)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 16, 17 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Writ jurisdiction – Remedy of statutory appeal -- Recovery of Rs.21,858/- imposed -- State contended that order is appealable without exhausting the remedy of statutory appeal, petitioner has approached High Court while invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction – Writ petition withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the remedy of statutory appeal – If an appeal is preferred within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the competent authority while passing reasoned order within six months from its institution -- Appellate Authority on the point of delay, shall take into consideration the pendency of proceedings before High Court.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Family pension -- Excess payment of Rs.1,12,794/- to pensioner – Recovery of -- Submitted that inadvertently while computing pension of the petitioner D.A was added @ 200% whereas, the same was 100% starting from January, 2014 onwards till June, 2014 and 107% from July, 2014 to March, 2015 and when the said discrepancy was corrected by the respondents in April, 2015, it was found that an excess amount of Rs.1,12,794/- was paid to the petitioner, which needs to be recovered – Held, excess amount has been paid to the petitioner due to the fault of the respondents themselves, therefore, no recovery of the excess amount can be made from the petitioner and, consequently, the same is held to be bad and is set aside -- Amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner by the respondents so far be refunded to her within a period of two months.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 -- Charge sheets after retirement – Pensionary benefits – Right of -- Charge sheet issued subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner does not give jurisdiction to the respondents to retain his pensionary benefits - - Petitioner held entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed release of pensionary benefits.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 -- Family pension – Excess payment – Recovery from pensioner -- Permissibility of -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner played any role in getting the excess pension rather, the respondents have conceded the fact that it was due to wrong data fed in the computer -- Where a person continued to get a benefit for a period of 5 years before the same is sought to be withdrawn, the recovery cannot be made and further, the recovery cannot be made from a retired person -- Pension to the petitioner was paid at a higher rate from 01.01.2006 to 28.02.2013, which is more than period of 5 years and further, the petitioner was being paid family pension, which is admissible to a widow/widower of a retired employee – Held, no recovery is permissible -- Amount recovered from the petitioner be refunded back to her within a period of two months.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Additional explanation -- State must not be allowed to bring in additional explanation to justify their actions when those are conspicuous by their absence, in the government decision.

(Para 26)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16(1) – Doctrine of legitimate expectation -- Intelligible differentia -- Contention that the +2 lecturers have no semblance of similarity with the BSES, to enable assimilation into the BES -- No intelligible differentia could be pointed out by the state’s counsel to sustain such arbitrary classification between +2 lecturers and the BSES secondary level teachers, posted in government schools -- High Court declared that the +2 lecturers, both in the Government and the nationalized (taken over) secondary schools, appointed pursuant to Advertisement No.1/87, have always been part of the Bihar Subordinate Education Service (“BSES”) and thereby, they are entitled to be merged with the Bihar Education Service Class II (“BES”), pursuant to the Government decision dated 07.07.2006 – Manifest departure smacks of arbitrariness and the government action, to selectively protect the interest of the BES cadre, does not conform to rules of justice and fair play -- Where the substantive legitimate expectation is not ultra vires the power of the authority and the court is in a position to protect it, the State cannot be allowed to change course and belie the legitimate expectation of the respondents -- Regularity, Predictability, Certainty and Fairness are necessary concomitants of Government’s action and the Bihar government failed to keep to their commitment by the impugned decision, which was rightly interdicted by the High Court – Appeal by State dismissed.

(Para 2, 27, 33, 34, 38)

Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, Rule 52, 67.2 -- Appointment as constable – FIR u/s 148/149/323/506/356 IPC -- Non-disclosure of criminal case – Discharge of employee -- Mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service -- Criminal complaint/FIR registered post submission of the application form -- Nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and matter was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude -- Proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal –Nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force -- Order of discharge passed by the competent authority is not sustainable -- Respondents directed to reinstate the appellant -- Appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc.

(Para 13-19)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Excess payment to employee – Recovery thereof -- If the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable – Relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered -- If it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Excess payment to employee – Recovery thereof -- Not a case of misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant-employee -- Appellant retired on 31.03.1999 -- Case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General – Held, attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified -- Appeal allowed, recovery notice set aside.

(Para 14-16)

Service matter -- Transfer of the petitioner from Chandigarh to Lucknow – Challenge to – Respondent-Bank directed to take a conscious decision upon representation within a period of one week – Petitioner shall not be relieved from his duties till the decision of the aforesaid representation.

(Para 5, 6)

Transfer policy dated 13.02.2020 (Haryana), Condition No. 8 – Service matter – Transfer on promotion – Challenge to -- Petitioner was posted in Sonepat as a Clerk and after his promotion to the post of Assistant, he has been transferred to Ambala – Reliance of the petitioner on condition No.8 of the transfer policy is wholly misplaced as the same only stipulates that in case of direct recruitment or promotion, an employee shall be posted/adjusted in the zone of eligibility and availability -- Petitioner does not have any right to remain posted at the same place even after his promotion or that he should be accommodated at a nearby place -- Post of an Assistant at Ambala has become available and the petitioner has been posted there after his promotion -- Transfer is merely an incidence of service and no employee has right to remain posted at a particular place especially after promotion.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Guest teachers – Adhoc employee -- Appointments through due selection procedure – From the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis – It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed – Writ petitioners-appellants would be entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced by regularly selected candidates -- Provided that a sufficient number of students are available for the particular course(s) for which the writ petitioners-appellants are appointed -- Advertisements clearly provided that the selected candidates would be paid the honorarium -- Direction issued by the learned single judge of the High Court that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable – Writ petitioners-appellants would be entitled to honorarium as is being paid to them presently.

(Para 12-16)

Punjab Civil Service Rules, Rule 2.2. (b) (2) – Chargesheet after retirement – Legality of -- Charge sheet served on 07.02.2020 with regard to alleged negligence committed in the audit report for the year 2013 and 2014, which report was submitted on 27.04.2015 -- Allegations relate to a period which is more than 4 years old – Held, there is no jurisdiction with the respondents to serve the charge sheet, same is impermissible keeping in view the provisions of Rule 2.2. (B) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules -- Accordingly, the charge sheet along with consequential proceedings is quashed.

(Para 7, 8)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 1, Part 1, Rule 7.3 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Removal from service on account of FIR – Re-instatement after acquittal -- Petitioner was denied salary for the period when he remained out of service i.e. from the date of his dismissal from service till his reinstatement in service, by considering it as a period of duty without salary on the basis of no work no pay – No departmental inquiry was initiated, petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of FIR that was registered against him u/s 326, 324, 34 IPC and therefore, would be entitled to pay and allowances for the period he remained out of service -- Writ petition allowed -- Reinstatement in service shall be treated as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes.

(Para 1,2, 6-8)

U.P. Educational Manual, Chapter 3 Rule 4 -- Appointment as Principal -- Irregular appointment -- Cancellation of -- Recovery of money paid -- Appellant worked for almost 24 years before the services came to be cancelled -- High Court failed to consider the fact that even if the appointment was irregular, the appellant had discharged the duties and in lieu of duties, he had to be paid -- State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of any salary -- Respondents are directed to treat appellant as retired on the date of the order and to pay pensionary benefits, if any, due to him for the services rendered -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 2-8)

Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12.21 – Appointment as constable –Involvement in murder case -- Absented from his duty – Acquittal order giving benefit of doubt – Discharge from duties without enquiry within one year -- Ld. Single Judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that an enquiry had to be conducted -- Order set aside and writ petition filed by petitioner dismissed.

(Para 1, 3, 12-15)

A. Compassionate appointment policy dated 08.05.1995 (Haryana) – Compassionate appointment – Object of -- Purpose is only to tide over the extreme exigencies at the time of death of employee and there is no vested right which shall carry on for all times to come.

(Para 12)

B. Compassionate appointment policy dated 08.05.1995 (Haryana), Clause 2(v) -- Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Appointment on compassionate grounds – Minor at time of father’s death --  Minor had to be offered appointment within 3 years of the death -- After a decade son applied on attaining majority and claim was rejected – Contention raised that similarly situated persons as such were appointed and, therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution of India would come into play, would not as such carry much weight – Article 14 is a positive concept and not a negative concept -- No merit in appeal, dismissed.

(Para 1, 12-15)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2A -- Misconduct -- Removal of employee without enquiry -- Effect of -- Mere fact of non-holding of the enquiry would not vitiate the award passed by the Labour Court -- It is well established that in case the employer had not held the enquiry qua the allegation of mis-conduct against a workman at the time of termination of her service, then the employer can also prove the misconduct before the Labour Court.

(Para 6)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(oo), 25F – Termination of service -- Termination of the service was by way of punishment -- Such termination is not retrenchment as per the definition given in the Act -- Therefore, the respondents were under no duty to either pay the compensation or to observe the rule of last come first go.

(Para 7)