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)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Contractual appointment -- Right to continue on post – Writ jurisdiction -- Contractual employee has only very limited rights confined within the four corners of the contract of employment -- It is the prerogative of an employer to continue and/or discontinue with the contractual services in terms of the contract – High Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction – writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek appropriate alternative remedy.

(Para 1,5,6)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 310 – Service matter -- Excess payment during service – Undertaking at the time of release of pensionary benefits – Effect of – Increment given to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was sought to be withdrawn after a period of seven and half years -- Nothing to show that at the time when the petitioner was extended the said increment while in service, there was any undertaking given by the petitioner that in case at any later stage, the grant of the said increment is found to be inadmissible, the petitioner will refund the amount so received – Held, undertaking given at the time of retirement can only be used in respect of the release of the retiral benefits and not with regard to any benefit which an employee received while in service.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Employees’ (Workmen) Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 4A -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Dismissal of appeal on delay – Modification in interest – Permissibility of -- Having dismissed the appeal of the insurer on the ground of limitation, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere on merits with the award of interest on compensation -- Interest with the award of compensation restored.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Employees’ (Workmen) Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 4A – Award with interest -- Interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the principal sum awarded from the date of accident till the deposit -- High Court directed that the appellants are not entitled to any interest on the compensation awarded except the accrued interest -- Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due – There was no legal basis for the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest -- Interest with the award of compensation restored.

(Para 3-6)

A. Service matter -- Suspension of employee – Challenge to -- Right of employee -- Employer has got a right to conduct probe into allegations of misconduct on the part of an employee under his control and within his jurisdiction -- If the employer feels that such employee can tamper with the record and otherwise influence the departmental witnesses, if continued to perform his/her duties, then such delinquent employee can be placed under suspension -- An employee cannot dictate as to who should carry out the inquiry and the place where the inquiry should be conducted -- Disciplinary proceedings against an employee cannot be stayed ordinarily unless it is found that the same are being carried out in total violation of rules, regulations and total disregard to principles of natural justice.

(Para 5)

B. Service matter – Suspension of employee -- Ad-interim stay -- Educational Tribunal, dismissed the application for grant of ad interim injunction and categorically observed that the petitioner has failed to establish three co-existing factors i.e. a prima facie case; balance of convenience and an irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money because the inquiry is yet to commence – Court Find no reason to take a different view in the matter and to interfere with such order passed by the Educational Tribunal.

(Para 5, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Service matter -- Disciplinary action on account of FIR/Criminal case -- Acquittal in – Writ petition directing the respondents to revoke an order, whereby her salary was re-fixed and petitioner has been held entitled to subsistence allowance only for the period she remained under suspension and termination with a further prayer to release arrears of salary with all consequential benefits along with interest -- In CWP-7794-2018, Surender Singh versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.10.2019 it was held that every acquittal is honourable acquittal, there is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code nor is there any rule of criminal jurisprudence for treating the effects and consequences of an honourable acquittal from an acquittal on failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned order quashed with direction to the respondents to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its actual realization.

(Para 1,6-9)

Punjab Civil Services Rules V-II, Rule 6.17 -- Family Pension Scheme -- Second wife – Right of 100% family pension -- Definition assigned thereto “Family” is well enumerated therein which includes “Wife” in the case of male government employee -- Deceased-employee left behind only one widow, i.e. petitioner as first wife had pre-deceased on 31.11.2008 -- Since at the relevant time consequent upon the death of retired employee petitioner happens to be the sole legal heirs being widow entitled to this family pension and, therefore, is definitely entitled to get her full family pension as admissible to the dependents of a deceased -- Claim that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the family pension is wholly misplaced and erroneous -- There being only one person left to claim the family pension and thus, is entitled to 100% family pension.

(Para 5, 6)

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 4 (as amended by 15 of 2010) – Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 10(10)(ii) -- Payment of gratuity – Exemption from income tax – Date of commencement fixed by the Executive in exercise of power delegated by the Amending Act cannot be treated to be retrospective as the benefit of higher gratuity is one-time available to the employees only after the commencement of the Amending Act -- Benefit paid to the appellants under the office memorandum is not entitled to exemption in view of specific language of Section 10(10)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

(Para 17)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Contractual employee – Renewal of contract – Right of -- It is settled law that no contractual employee has a right to have his/her contract renewed from time to time. Yogesh Mahajan’s case 2018(1) SCT 690 relied.

(Para 15)

Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, Rule 2 (a)(iii) -- Death of Part-time Tubewell operator – Compassionate appointment – High Court granted benefit of compassionate appointment --  Challenge to -- From the very inception father of respondent was given the benefits of a regular employee while designating him as a Part Time tubewell operator -- High Court found that the appointment was against the regular vacancy though it continued to be termed as a ‘Part Time’ appointment apart from the fact that his work hours were of a regular employee entitling him to equal pay for equal work -- Father of the respondent was also transferred from one department to the other, normally an aspect which would be associated with a person who had a regular employment -- Most significant aspect is that had the father of the respondent not been considered a regular appointee, there would be no occasion for the Department to volunteer his services to the State Election Commission to perform election duties, which could have been done only by a Government employee – For all practical purposes, it is a case of an appointment against a regular vacancy -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 9-15)

A. Rules of Court, 1952, Chapter III, Rule 1 -- Administrative Committee – Decision of – Scope of – For the convenience of transacting administrative business and for smooth functioning of day-to-day matters pertaining to control over the subordinate judiciary, it would be possible for the High Court to authorize and empower an Administrative Judge or an Administrative Committee of Judges to act on behalf of the Court -- It was in the context of such specific authorization in favour of the Administrative Committee in terms of Rule 1 of Chapter III of Rules of Court, 1952, framed by the High Court, that the recommendations made by the Administrative Committee were found to be without any constitutional infirmity -- It does not however mean that even in the absence of Rules authorizing or empowering the Committee, the decision made by or conclusions arrived at by the Committee would be binding on the Full Court or that the Full Court would not be within its jurisdiction to take a different view in the matter.

(Para 11, 12)

B. Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, Rule 4(1)(viii) -- [Corresponding Rule 4(b)(v) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016] – Compulsory retirement of Addl. Session Judge – Gravity of the matter and standards of ethics required -- Retaining huge amounts of cash in hand for the substantial periods in the financial years concerned, after admitting the withdrawals and deposits from the accounts specified in the Articles of Charge, which required no further proof -- Full court recommending compulsory retirement -- Considering the facts and circumstances on record and in view of the record indicating that there were multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money, it cannot be said that the Full Court was not justified in taking the view that it did.

(Para 5-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Selection of Anganwari worker -- Ineligible candidate selected – Later removed from post -- Appellant is claiming the said post on the ground that she is next to removed candidate in the select list – Immediately after removal, the appellant staked her claim on the said post by moving application – It being so, the next candidate in merit be considered for appointment – LPA allowed, with a direction to the respondents to consider the appellant for appointment to the post of Anganwari worker.

(Para 12, 13)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Contractual employment – Removal without opportunity of hearing – Right of – Working as Data Entry Operator since 2013 and contract of his services had been extended from time to time -- Petitioner has been relieved from service, ostensibly in view of some complaints -- Submits that copy of said complaints was not even supplied to the petitioner so as to give him a chance to respond – Petitioner submitted a representation but the same has not been adverted by the respondents till date – Also requested to respondent-authorities to allow him to continue by taking him back in service -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner as per representation and also by keeping in view the contentions raised in the writ petition by treating the same as supplementary representation and pass an order, in accordance with law.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Daily wages period – Counting for pensionary/retiral benefits – Writ for mandamus -- Writ seeking mandamus directing the respondents to count daily wages/work charge services for the purpose of pensionary benefit/retiral benefits to the petitioners, which rendered prior to regularization, along with interest @ 24% per annum – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the legal notice of the petitioners and take a conscious decision thereon by passing a speaking order; within a period of 3 months -- If the petitioners are found entitled to any pecuniary benefits; then the said pecuniary benefits shall also be released to the petitioners within a further period of 3 months.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Transfer of employee – Challenge in writ – Said order was stayed on 23.08.2017 and the petitioner continues to stay at the same place and almost a period of 4 years has expired since then -- Transfer is a incidence in service and the guidelines issued by the State are not enforceable for the purpose of assailing it and the employee cannot claim to remain at a particular place or post of his choice -- Interim order stands vacated -- It is open to the official respondents to take action in accordance with law.

(Para 2-6)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25F – Termination of service – Re-instatement with backwages – Right of -- Violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not automatically entail in the reinstatement with full back wages -- Relief to be granted depends on the facts of individual cases -- Appellant-Bank to pay an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to the Respondent within a period of eight weeks from today.

(Para 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Re-employment/ Extension of employment after superannuation – Right of – Jurisdiction of -- Claim of the petitioner for grant of re-employment or extension beyond the age of superannuation provided under the statutes governing the university employees is the sole discretion of the University and it is the employer only, who has to decide on the said issue keeping in view the various aspects and the Court has no jurisdiction to direct the University to grant extension merely on the asking of an employee and that too without any plausible ground for the same. Petition dismissed

(Para 16-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter – Contractual employees -- Petitioner subjected to hostile discrimination as similarly situated Lab Technicians were taken back in service in the years 2019 and 2020, though on contract, relieved from contractual service in the year 2015 – It is specifically stated in writ petition that similarly situated employees, when they approached the Court vide CWP No.6325 of 2019 and CWP No.18772 of 2020 were taken back on contract -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision on representation, in accordance with law.

(Para 1-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Transfer policy -- Challenge to -- Transfer being matter of administrative exigency, High Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless it is a case of extreme hardship -- In discharge of its administrative functions/duties, the department has introduced a online transfer policy across board for every serving Forest Guard/Foresters, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory -- Being a matter of policy, in itself is sufficient ground alone for High court to refrain from interfering in the domain of policy making by state -- No grounds to interfere – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Haryana Medical Education Rules (Draft Rules of Group “A”), 2011 -- Appointment on higher post -- In-eligible for higher post – Reversion of petitioners – Recovery of payment -- Right of -- Petitioners have secured appointment by illegal manner and were ineligible and also over-age and continued to work illegally -- Only on account of the fact that an illegal order has been passed by the Director, Medical Education & Research, at that point of time, dropping the proceedings, would not give the petitioners any cause to say that the proceedings had come to an end -- Petitioners could not, substantiate the fact that they had the essential qualifications as required for the appointment existing at that point of time -- No merit in the writ petitions, the same are dismissed -- Since the petitioners have worked on a higher post for the periods in question and the impugned orders do not talk about any recovery, the State shall not, at any later stage, seek to recover the emoluments received by the petitioners, for the work done on the higher posts.

(Para 10-20)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 – Contractual appointment through service provider – Removal from service by replacing other contractual employees – Challenge to -- Appellant failed to produce his appointment letter, if any, issued by Haryana Government or any of its department, he unable to establish that he was under the direct employment of respondents -- Appellant was engaged by Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner through service provider -- However, the said private outsourcing agency was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition by the appellant – Learned Single Judge rightly observed that there was no relationship of master-servant between the respondents and the petitioner (appellant herein) -- Consequently, the appeal dismissed being devoid of merits.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Minimum regular pay scale – Right of -- Representation filed by the petitioners for grant of said benefit, being the employees of the Government Medical College since they are working from various dates starting from the year 2012 on contract basis – Keeping in view the fact that since the decision making is still incomplete, petition disposed of with the directions to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation within a period of 3 months keeping in view the referred judgments.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Service matter -- Retiral benefits – Gratuity and Revised pay scale -- Non-release of -- Legal notice for -- Writ of mandamus -- Directions issued to respondents to duly consider the “Legal Notice and Advance Notice for Writ Petition” as representation of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, preferably, within a period of one month.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 -- Service matter – Transfer of employee – Non-follow of guidelines -- Interference in -- Transfer is an incidence of services and the Court should be slow to interfere in the matters of transfer unless mala-fide or something serious is raised by the employee -- Guidelines for transfers and postings issued by the State Government are general in nature and would not come in the way of transfers made in the public interest or on the basis of administrative exigencies.

(Para 9-11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Release of pensionary benefits – Writ jurisdiction – Petitioner superannuated as clerk on 29.02.2020 – Submitted that no enquiry or complaint is pending – Petitioner submits that requisite formalities have been completed and there is no justification, whatsoever, for withholding pension and retiral benefits of the petitioner – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months and necessary benefits found due towards the petitioner be released to him within four weeks thereafter.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer Policy/ Guidelines – Violation of -- Writ jurisdiction -- It is settled proposition that generally High Court does not readily interfere in the transfers/posting matters -- However, the case of the petitioner is that the guidelines and transfer policy have been violated, as such, direction be given to respondents to decide his representation, which he has preferred to respondent No.3 -- Writ petition disposed off with direction to respondents to decide the same within a period of two months.

(Para 2-7)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 310 -- Appointment of Naib Tehsildar – Improvement in qualification marks before interview – Whether the same shall relate back to the date of acquiring the said qualification or not – Held, petitioner possessed the eligibility condition of Matric and Graduation as on the cut-off date -- Petitioner improved his score of 10th and 12th Examination before the date of interview and that the result was supplied at the time of interview – Commission is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner after taking into consideration the improved marks in Class 10 and Class 12 -- If the petitioner scores higher marks than the last selected candidate, he would be entitled to grant of appointment.

(Para 9-14)

Service matter -- Compassionate appointment -- Application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the respondent’s husband had gone missing -- As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent’s son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing -- Respondent’s son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Anganwari helper – Consideration for Anganwari Worker – Ignoring seniority and better qualification – Writ disposed of with a direction to the Director, Social Security and Development of Women and Children, Punjab, to look into and deal with/decide the said legal notice of the petitioner in accordance with law/relevant rules or regulations, by passing a speaking order thereon, within a period of three months.

(Para 1, 5)

Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rules  13.1, 13.14, 13.15 (Haryana) – Selection Grade – Promotion to Inspector from Sub-Inspector -- Selection grades are in the nature of promotional scale, therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to selection grade can very well be taken as criteria for further promotion which is the spirit of the Rules followed uniformly by the State while effecting the promotion -- Object and purpose of the Rules and methodology for evaluating the Police personnel to move in the higher rank in the same or to the next rank cannot be lost sight nor can be ignored merely because the scheme was withdrawn on 29.04.1987 -- No error committed by the State in continuing the evaluation of the Sub-Inspectors on the basis of criteria as provided in Rule 13.14 while effecting promotion -- Chapter XIII of the Rules have to be conjointly and harmoniously construed -- Court do not find any error in State promoting the Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors who have eight years’ approved service to their credit, at least five years being as Sub-Inspectors.

(Para 13, 19-21)

Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service) (Executive Branch) Rules, 1972, Rule 4 -- Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982, Rule 4, 9(3), 10 – Seniority -- Weightage of army service -- Advertisement against which the appellant was appointed was issued on 01.05.1982, i.e., after the enforcement of 1982 Rules – Saving clause under Rule 9(3) does not extend any benefit to the appellant since there is nothing to show that any right of weightage for army services for seniority has already accrued before he joined services -- Saving clause in Rule 9(3) cannot be availed by the appellant – Held, appellant was not entitled to claim benefit of military service for purpose of seniority for appointment to Punjab Civil Service(Executive Branch) since the benefit of Rule 4(1) of 1972 Rules was not continued in 1982 Rules -- His seniority was to be governed by statutory rules applicable after the enforcement of 1982 Rules.

(Para 12-23)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Daily wage sweeper – Pension – Right of -- Petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on daily wage basis in the year 1986 against the sanctioned post and retired in the year 2017 -- Similarly situated employees are entitled for grant of pension but not granted to the petitioner on the ground that she did not apply for the pension scheme -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending legal notice by keeping in view the legal provisions as well as judgment passed in CWP No.3500 of 2018.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Absorption in Old Pension Scheme – Refund of contribution made to Contributory Pension Scheme – Directions issued -- Petitioners had been making contributions out of their salary towards the said scheme -- Some of the petitioners had approached High Court seeking a direction that they should be governed by the Old Pension Scheme, the said writ petition was accepted – Petitioners requested for release of the amount which they had contributed in CPS but the same has not been released – Petition disposed of with a direction to DGP/competent authority to consider and decide the legal notice in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of 2 months -- In case anything is found due, the same be paid to petitioners within a period of 3 months thereafter.

(Para 4-9)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 16 – Selection in reserve post – Availability of new posts -- Appointment in open category -- With the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if the candidates who were already selected against reserved posts were entitled to be considered against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid on any count -- These 3295 posts were part of the same selection process initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such the adjustment was rightly done by the State.

(Para 8)

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 14 -- Postal Manual Volume III, Rule 12 – Compulsory retirement -- Charges of bribery not made out and procedural lapse were proved --  Tribunal set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and direction given to impose appropriate minor punishment – High Court set aside order of minor punishment also – Held, the Tribunal adopted the appropriate course of action, i.e., the procedural lapses having been found and the bribery allegation having been rejected the appropriate course would have been to examine only the issue of disproportionality of punishment – Judicial forums do not sit as an appellate authority to substitute their mind with the mind of the disciplinary authority insofar as the finding is concerned -- Punishment of compulsory retirement was completely disproportionate and harsh -- Mistakes should not be unduly harsh -- Impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal is restored.

(Para 1, 4, 7-9, 18-21)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Contractual employee – Extension of period – Right of -- A contractual employee does not have any vested right to continue on such arrangement -- It is not the case made out on behalf of the petitioner that he is sought to be replaced by another similar contractual arrangement -- No infirmity or patent illegality in the impugned memo denying benefit of extension in service as contractual employee.

(Para 5-7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Transfer of employee – Challenge to – Writ jurisdiction -- No mala fides alleged against any officer who may have ordered the transfer of the petitioner -- Nothing in the petition which spells out any reason to harbour mala fides against the petitioner -- Mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of mala fides -- There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the passing of the impugned transfer order -- No ground is made out to exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned transfer order.

(Para 6-9)

A. Bank employee -- Compulsory retirement – Disciplinary proceedings -- Detailed order for punishment – Requirement of -- Enquiry Officer, after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges are proved -- Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision -- Along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report was also enclosed -- As such, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondent-bank -- If the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment -- Punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.

(Para 7)

B. Bank employee -- Compulsory retirement – Disciplinary proceedings -- Sanction and disbursement of loans without following the due procedure -- Allegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances to (a) units without any shop/business; (b) more than one loan to members of same family etc. – Enquiry Officer, after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges are proved – In response to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, it is clear that petitioner has virtually admitted the charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to work pressure -- Further he went to the extent of saying that he is ready to bear the loss suffered by the bank on account of his lapses – It cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Accommodation of additional candidates in recruitment -- Permissibility of -- It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.

(Para 15)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, Rule 3, 4, 5 -- Accommodation of additional candidates in recruitment – Interim direction in Writ jurisdiction – Permissibility of – 828 posts advertised -- 828 candidates recommended for promotion to the post of sub-inspector on the basis of result -- Policy decision to accommodate 636 additional candidates – Challenged before Tribunal, OA is pending – Tribunal passed interim order of status-quo with respect to additional candidates -- High Court in the Writ Petition has issued a direction to the State to send the additional list of 636 candidates for training of 9 months during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal – Held, such a direction ought not to have been passed in the Writ Petition filed by the present Petitioners, who are aggrieved by the impugned Government Resolution, which is the subject matter of challenge -- Civil Appeal allowed, Government resolution will remain stayed during the pendency of proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

(Para 5, 8-11, 18-20)

Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (15 of 1979), Section 6 -- Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, Rule 2, 3, 4 and 5 (h) and (i) – Compassionate appointment to the dependant of Government Aided Colleges employee – Equality with Government Employee -- Right of -- 2019 Rules are applicable only to the Government employees who die in harness -- Members of the petitioner-Union do not fall within the definition of the Government employee -- Management of an affiliated college is regulated by a private entity -- Act of 1979 only enables the Government to notify the scales of pay in view of the fact that the Government extends the grant in aid to the aided Colleges -- Employees of the petitioner cannot claim that they are entitled to the same facilities at par with the Government employees.

(Para 8, 9)

King George Medical University Act, Uttar Pradesh Act, 2002 (U.P. Act No. 2 of 2019), Section 53 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers – Challenge to -- Act which Governs the appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers in the University itself provides a mechanism for questioning an appointment, i.e., by representation to the Chancellor that too within a period of three months -- Any challenge to appointment after more than three years cannot be entertained -- Respondent No.4 in his representation before the Chancellor never challenged the appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor and had filed representation only claiming seniority over appellant after he got promoted as Assistant Professor himself in the year 2007 – Held, High Court ought not to have entertained the challenge to the appointment of appellant in the writ petition and ought to have confined the consideration of claim of respondent No.4 for seniority over the appellant -- When the appointment of appellant was not challenged in reasonable time as per the provisions of the Act, 2002, it is not in the ends of justice to permit the respondent No.4 to challenge such appointment in the High Court in the writ petition for the first time, after more than four years of the appointment -- Judgment of the High Court set aside.

(Para 26-28)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 32 – LARSGESS scheme adopted by Railways – Backdoor entry in service – Appointment sought for certain wards of serving employees without undergoing a competitive selection -- Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways -- This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution -- Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme -- Petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme -- Grant of reliefs to the petitioners would only enable them to seek a back door entry -- Petition under Article 32, dismissed.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 221 -- Criminal case – Departmental proceedings – Stay of -- Merely because the departmental proceedings and criminal trial are on same allegations does not ipso facto result in stay of departmental proceedings.

(Para 6)

Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 29 -- Pension on Voluntary Retirement -- Application for voluntary retirement with a request for curtailment of notice of three months – Rejection of application at end of the 90^th day for voluntary retirement does not reflect any compliance of Sub-Regulation 3(b) of Regulation 29 -- No reasons whatsoever have been assigned/given except stating that the request is not in accordance with Pension Regulations, 1995 – Request made by the employee for curtailment of notice of three months was also not considered on merits -- Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that the application for voluntary retirement was absolutely in consonance with Regulation 29 and that the rejection was bad in law and contrary to Regulation 29 and was absolutely justified in quashing and setting aside the communication -- Employee shall be entitled to all retiral benefits on the basis of his voluntary retirement.

(Para 10, 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in release of retiral benefits – Interest thereupon -- Petitioner retired on 29.02.2016, contention that after serving of the legal notice dated 6.2.2018, the retiral benefits of the petitioner have been released in the year 2019-2020 and as per the principles of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab, 1997(3) SCT 468, the petitioner is entitled for interest – Petition disposed of with the direction to respondent to decide the legal notice qua the aspect of interest by passing a speaking order within a period of three months -- In case, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the monetary benefits after the decision of the legal notice, the same should also be paid to the petitioner within three months thereafter.

(Para 1-6)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25B -- Discharge from services – No disciplinary enquiry – Legality of – School has led sufficient evidence before the Labour Court to prove that the Respondent had abandoned her service from 01.07.1997 when she got married, and moved to another District, which was not denied by her in her evidence -- Record of the School reveals that she was not in employment of the School since July 1997 – Labour court dismissed the claim of respondent/ employee -- High Court has not even adverted to the evidence, and has disposed of the Writ Petition on the sole ground that the School had not conducted a disciplinary enquiry before discharging the respondent from service and order for re-instatement -- Held, onus was entirely upon the employee to prove that she had worked continuously for 240 days’ in the twelve months preceding the date of her alleged termination on 8.3.2006, which she failed to discharge -- Judgment of the High Court set aside, award passed by Labour Court restored.

(Para 1, 11, 15-19)