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)

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)