A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) – Arbitration – Deposit of amount as pre-condition – Legality of -- A clause which seeks deposit of a part of the claimed amount to avail of the remedy of arbitration is one which would be illegal and unlawful as it is barring a legal remedy from being invoked without deposit of money -- No remedy can be subjected to payment of money, unless authorised by law -- Such a clause in a contract lacks legitimacy and would not be enforceable.

(Para 76)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) --  Constitution of India, Article 19, 21 -- Employment agreement -- Lock-in period of three years -- Covenants in employment contracts -- Lawful and reasonable covenants which are operative during the term of employment are valid and enforceable -- Such covenants are not in violation of the fundamental rights as provided in the Constitution of India -- Reasonable lock-in periods in employment contracts that apply during the term of employment are valid in law and do not violate Fundamental Rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India -- Disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts, are arbitrable in terms of the Act, 1996.

(Para 78)

Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004, Rule 5(c) – Constitution of India, Article 233 -- Appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judge – Eligibility criteria -- Continuous practice as an advocate – Minimum period of 7 year of practice – Exclusion of judicial service period – Practicing Advocate at the Bar of a minimum period of seven years as on the last date fixed for receipt of the applications -- There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post -- Respondent no. 4 has cumulatively more than 7 years of active practice, thus he is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Additional District Judge as per Rule 5 (c) – Rule 5(c) upheld, “Note” below clause (c) of Rule 5 (permitting counting of Judicial service of a candidate towards counting of 7 years practice as Advocate for being eligible to be appointed as Additional District Judge), declared unenforceable and struck down.

(Para 42-68)

A. Constitution of India, Article 12, 13, 226 -- Army Welfare Education Society / Private Educational  Institution – Service dispute – Maintainability of writ –

-- Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it?

-- Whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational  institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Held, High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution -- School run by the Appellant Society imparts education -- Relationship is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract -- If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element -- The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents.

(Para 42, 46)

B. Doctrine of legitimate expectation -- Features :

-- First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation;

-- Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings;

-- Thirdly, expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be treated as a legitimate expectation;

-- Fourthly, legitimate expectation operates in relation to both substantive and procedural matters;

-- Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis.

-- Sixthly, a plea of legitimate expectation based on past practice can only be taken by someone who has dealings, or negotiations with a public authority. It cannot be invoked by a total stranger to the authority merely on the ground that the authority has a duty to act fairly generally.

The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case.

(Para 48, 49)

C. Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Arbitrariness in State action -- It is clear that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action -- It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field.

(Para 49)

D. Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Schol run by Society – Applicability upon -- Even if the function being performed by a private educational institution in imparting education may be considered as a public function, the relationship between the administration of such an institution and its employees remains a contractual one, falling within the ambit of private law -- No statutory obligation on the appellant society which requires that the salaries and allowances of the respondents are to be kept at par with what is payable to teachers of Government institutions -- Appellant society, for the purposes of its relationship with its employees, cannot be regarded as a public or Government authority -- Doctrine of legitimate expectation will have no applicability to the facts of the case.

(Para 50-52)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Medical reimbursement -- Unapproved hospital -- Partial reimbursement at PGI rates – Son of the petitioner is handicapped, also a mentally challenged person suffering from severe abdominal pain/ emergency condition, shifted to the unapproved hospital and on the date of admission, he was operated upon and was discharged on the next day – Held, it would be inhuman to say employee should keep on searching the list of approved hospitals and should first go to an approved hospital or a government hospital by ignoring the developing pain and at the risk of life -- It would be not only perverse but it will also be violative of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition allowed -- Respondents directed to pay full medical reimbursement.

(Para 8-10)

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), Section 7A, 7-I, 7Q, 14B – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Appeal -- Writ by Adjudicating Authority/ Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner – Maintainability of -- Held, Adjudicating Authority, though an Officer of the Government cannot prefer any appeal – To challenge orders passed under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 by the Tribunal, the Writ petition filed by the Adjudicating Authority/ Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is not maintainable.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Show cause notice – Non-service of – Effect of – Rule of natural justice -- In the absence of any material to show that the Show Cause Notice was served on the respondent at all, it has to be presumed that the action of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in setting the respondent ex parte and proceeding to assess damages and interest, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

(Para 23)

B. Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), Section 7I, 7Q, 14B – Quantum of damages – Power of -- Contention that under 2nd Proviso to Section 14-B of the Act, only the Board of Trustees was empowered to reduce the quantum of damages and that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, had no such power – Court disagreed with said plea – Held, as an Appellate Authority, the said Tribunal acting u/s 7-I of the Act, can exercise all the powers of the Primary Authority/ Adjudicating Authority.

(Para 30, 31)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 – Termination of service --  Involvement in FIR u/s 376/342 RPC -- Rule of natural justice – Opportunity of hearing -- Respondents without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner have terminated/dis-engaged the petitioner from the service which is palpably bad in the eyes of law as the order impugned has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice -- Otherwise also, the petitioner in the instant case stands acquitted of the charges on the basis of which he was disengaged -- Order disengaging the petitioner as SPO set aside – Services restored with all consequential benefits excluding the payment of emoluments for the period from disengagement till the date of restoration of service.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Minimum criteria for appointment -- Relaxation at the time of appointment -- Once relaxation in eligibility criteria is granted to an employee at the time of his/her appointment, he/she is deemed to have satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria and thereafter, he/she cannot be asked to seek relaxation in qualification at each stage of his/her career progression, unless the higher post prescribes a different qualification/criteria -- It is not open to the respondent-University to deny to the petitioner consideration to higher scales of pay on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained 55% marks in her Master’s Degree at the time of her appointment as Assistant Administrative Officer.

(Para 18)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ jurisdiction – Service matter -- Interference in finding in Enquiry report -- In writ jurisdiction, Court cannot go into the sufficiency of evidence on the basis of which the Inquiry Officer has given his findings, yet, it is open to the Court to interfere in the findings of the Inquiry Officer if the same are based upon no evidence or if the said findings are based upon irrelevant material.

(Para 14)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Criminal case against employee – Termination of services -- Acquittal in criminal case – Mere acquittal will not confer on an employee a right to claim any benefit including reinstatement -- However, if the charges in the departmental inquiry and the criminal Court are identical or similar, then the matter acquires a different dimension -- Acquittal in the criminal proceedings was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, it would be open to the Court to exercise its power of judicial review and interfere in the findings of the disciplinary inquiry.

(Para 19)

C. Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, Rule 27 (2) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Criminal case against employee – Termination of services – “tried and acquitted” -- Discharge by Criminal Court – Charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are similar in nature -- Sanction from Inspector General not sought -- Petitioner may not have been tried by the criminal Court, but he has been discharged and exonerated of criminal charges so his case stands at the higher pedestal than acquittal, particularly when the petitioner has been discharged on merits and not on technicalities -- Dismissal of petitioner from service becomes unsustainable in law -- Termination order set aside, with back wages of 50%.

(Para 20-29)

D. Service matter -- Termination form service -- Re-instatement – Backwages – Even if an employee has succeeded in establishing that his dismissal from service is illegal, he may be entitled to reinstatement, but it is not necessary that he should be given full back wages.

(Para 27)

A. Service matter -- Once the disciplinary proceedings have already been concluded by awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement and recovery, the same cannot be reopened on the basis of conviction/ sentence awarded by the criminal Court.

(Para 12)

B. Service matter -- Dismissal order against dead person -- A dead person cannot be punished -- Once a government employee, who dies during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be proceeded after his death and the same principle can be followed against the State Government/Corporation Employees – Dismissal order set aside, petitioner held entitled for all the consequential benefits.

(Para 10-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dis-membership from Bar association – Writ jurisdiction -- There is no public law element involved in the dispute between a member of the HP High Court Bar Association such as the petitioner and the said Association, and since the said Association is unregistered society, merely because its members are Advocates who appear in the High Court and assist in the administration of justice, it cannot be said that the writ petition against its office bearers in their personal capacity is maintainable.

(Para 4, 24)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee – Right of employee -- Transfer is an incidence of service and any employee can be transferred on administrative reasons and there is no vested right of an employee to seek posting of his own choice -- However, the aforesaid is not an absolute Rule and is subjected to various exceptions which cannot be put in any straight jacket formula -- Every case has to be seen according to its own facts and circumstances -- Petitioner is 70% handicapped and his wife is suffering from last stage of Lung Cancer -- Impugned order set aside, respondent-Nigam is at liberty to pass a fresh order after considering posting the petitioner near his house at Kaithal which may be a Non-Public Dealing Office.

(Para 7-9)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Deemed retirement – Rule of natural justice -- Petitioner’s date of birth ordered to be changed by Corrigendum dated 23.08.2014 as (1.6.1968) instead of (1.3.1965) in the tentative seniority list – Retirement date would be 31.05.2026, whereas petitioner retired on 28.02.2023 – No show cause was issued to the petitioner and she was not called upon to state or submit her response as to why she be not retired deeming her to superannuate w.e.f. 28.02.2023 -- Impugned notification is bad as it has been passed by the department without adhering to the principles of natural justice, quashed and set aside.

(Para 2, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer on recommendation of MLA – Challenge to – No malafide against the Member of Legislative Assembly alleged -- Fact that the petitioner has remained posted District Mandi for nine years, he cannot have any ground to raise grievance against the impugned transfer order.

(Para 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Censure to employee -- Delay in retiral benefits – Interest thereupon – Promotion – Right of -- Since in the said disciplinary proceedings, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet have not been proved and the petitioner has only been ordered to be censure, therefore, the petitioner is held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed payment of retiral dues and his case is liable to be considered by the respondents for grant of promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service and also for promotion from the date, when persons junior to him were promoted with all consequential benefits.

(Para 7)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25FF – Transfer of Undertaking/ Company – Retrenchment compensation – Requirement of -- In case service of the workman is not interrupted by such transfer and terms and conditions of service applicable after such transfer are not in any way less favourable to the workman and new employer is legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment compensation on the basis his service has been continuous, there shall be no requirement of notice u/s 25-FF of the Act nor any compensation in lieu of retrenchment  -- Three conditions specified in the proviso are to be satisfied -- Employees can claim compensation against the transfer, if the three conditions remain unsatisfied.

(Para 16-20)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(k) – Industrial dispute – Transfer of Undertaking -- Petitioner-company while making its worker apprised of the factum with regard to proposed transfer/sale, specifically assured workmen of the petitioner-company that upon transfer they would become workmen/employees of HFL-transferee company with continuity of service on the conditions which in aggregate would be similar and in any case would not be less favourable to the existing conditions on which they are employed with the petitioner -- No dispute exist interse petitioner and its workers – Merely by submitting demand notice, respondent-union cannot be permitted to claim that “industrial dispute” exist interse petitioner and workmen.

(Para 25-28)

C. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(k), 10(1) -- Industrial dispute -- Demand Notice – Reference – Duty of Authority -- Appropriate Government, while considering/ making reference in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act, requires to apply its mind to ascertain whether industrial dispute, if any, exists or not – Firstly, authority needs to form an opinion that industrial dispute exist, only thereafter, it can proceed to make reference -- Authority cannot delve into the merits of the dispute, but before arriving at a conclusion that industrial dispute exist, if any, in the parties, authority needs to form an opinion on the basis of material adduced on record by the parties.

(Para 29-38)

Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Department, Patwari Mohal (Class-III Non-gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules 1992, Rule 15(A), (B) – Seniority of Patwaris -- Seniority list was drawn on 7.01.2000 – Appellants are deemed to have knowledge of the seniority list, their seniority positions as well as the principle on which the seniority list was drawn -- For more than twenty years, the seniority list was accepted and acted upon -- Promotions had also been made on the basis of the seniority list – No cogent reasons given for not assailing the seniority list within a reasonable period – Re-drawal of seniority list after more than twenty years would not just affect a person or two but the seniority positions of more than 45 persons would be upset -- Settled seniority position could not be unsettled.

(Para 3, 4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in retiral benefits -- Interest thereupon -- Either before or after the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental/ criminal proceedings were pending against him, therefore, his retiral benefits were required to be released within a reasonable time after his retirement --  Interest @ 6% per annum allowed, on the delayed payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 01.01.2023 (after two months of his retirement) till the actual date of payment.

(Para 8-10)

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (III of 1978), Section 7 – Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 40 -- Resignation by employee -- Acceptance of resignation – Non-communication thereof -- Withdrawal of resignation – Effect of -- As per service jurisprudence, the employment is terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority -- Appellant, tendered his resignation letter on 10.10.2017 and this resignation letter came be accepted on 14.10.2017 – Resignation was withdrawn vide letter dated 25.10.2017 by posting said letter on 03.11.2017 -- Non-communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation inoperative provided, there is, in fact, an acceptance before the withdrawal -- It is not open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority -- Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40 of the Rules does not impose any guidelines for acceptance of the resignation upon the management – Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant about withdrawal of resignation before communication of its acceptance does not hold water – Appeal dismissed. North Zone Cultural Centre’s case, (2003) 5 SCC 455 relied.

(Para 4, 21-24)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Removal from service – Leave encashment – Right of -- Leave encashment is admissible only at the time of retirement and not at any time before attaining the age of superannuation -- An employee, who has been removed from service, is not entitled for the grant of leave encashment – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7-11)

Service matter – Correction in date of birth – If a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service.

(Para 11)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10(1)(c) -- Petitioner/ Conductor misused the official capacity and caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.65.60/- by not issuing tickets -- Dismissal from service by Roadways – Industrial dispute raised – Workman held entitled to reinstatement with benefit of continuity of service -- His period of absence i.e. from the date of termination from the service till the passing of the earlier award or reinstatement in the service, would be treated as leave of the kind due -- However, he would not be entitled to any back wages -- Pay scale of the petitioner would be reassessed accordingly and all the consequential benefits would also be extended to him within four months.

(Para 3, 9, 10)

Service matter – Limitation -- Order of stoppage of three annual increments of the appellant with cumulative effect was passed on 14.06.1980, whereas suit for declaring the said order illegal, null and void was filed on 29.08.1988 after a period of eight years – Suit is hopelessly time barred – Suit dismissed.

(Para 1, 15)

A. Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969), Section 69 -- Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 2(1), 3(e), 20 – Co-operative Society/ Hospital – Establishment -- Petitioner being a Society and a hospital would answer the definition of 'establishment' under the Maternity Benefits Act -- Petitioner is liable to maintain registers and records provided under Section 20 of the Maternity Benefits Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(Para 19)

B. Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969), Section 69 -- Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act,  1958 (47 of 1958), Section 10 -- Co-operative Society/ Hospital – Establishment -- Petitioner being a Co-operative Society and a hospital comes within the ambit of 'establishment' under the Festival Holidays Act -- Petitioner is bound to maintain the registers and records under the Festival Holidays Act.

(Para 20)

C. Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969), Section 69 -- Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act,  1958 (47 of 1958), Section 10 -- Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (34 of 1960) -- Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961) -- Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948) -- Co-operative Society/ Hospital – Benefits to employees – Labour laws -- Provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Festival Holidays Act, deal with enforcement and inspection of various welfare and social security measures for employees which are not essentially covered by the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules -- Fact that the conditions of service of employees of Co-operative Societies are governed by the Co-operative Societies Act, will not make the provisions of the aforesaid labour legislations inapplicable to Co-operative Societies -- Employees of the Co-operative Societies are entitled to the benefits of the said labour legislations.

(Para 21)

Service matter -- Delay in pensionary benefits – Interest – Exoneration in departmental proceedings -- Punishments imposed after culmination of the disciplinary proceedings were held to be bad and the said punishment was set-aside -- Held, once, the appellant-plaintiff has been exonerated of the allegations alleged against him, he cannot be denied the benefit of interest so as to compensate the withholding of the pensionary benefits – Interest @ 6% per annum on leave encashment, commuted pension as well as gratuity from the date liable to be released i.e. 01.05.2008 till the actual payment awarded.

(Para 10-13)

A. Service matter -- Adhoc service -- Selection grade -- Adhoc service rendered by an employee cannot be taken into account for fixing his salary or grant of selection grade.

(Para 6)

B. Service matter -- Recovery from retired employee – Excess amount paid in view of judgments passed by Courts below – Setting aside of judgments – Effect of -- Recovery from the retired employee is covered under the category of hardship and has been made impermissible --  Respondent-plaintiff has already retired and is drawing pension as a pensioner -- Despite the fact the judgments of the Courts below have been set aside, the benefit already extended ordered not to be recovered.

(Para 9, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 16 – SC-Ex-serviceman – Appointment in SC category – Later deemed appointment in SC-Ex-serviceman category – Permissibility of -- Respondent had accepted his appointment as M.O. (Dental) against the post that was advertised only for SC category and appointed as such on 31.05.1993 -- Respondent’s claim for his deemed appointment as an ex-serviceman (SC) against the post advertised by the State on 31.10.1996 is not tenable.

(Para 3)

UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 14, 18 – Pension -- Minimum 10 years of service for pension – Broken period of service of less than one year -- Interpretation of – Petitioner rendered 9 years 10 months and 5 days of service --   In terms of substantive provision of Regulation No.18, service rendered by the respondent has to be reckoned as 10 years on the date of his retirement -- Appellant Bank cannot be permitted to take shelter behind proviso to this regulation to contend that such computation of service shall not be applied for determining eligibility for pension -- A right/ benefit vested/ bestowed in the employee under substantive provision of Regulation cannot be taken away by its proviso – Respondent/ writ petitioner held qualified for pension.

(Para 1-3)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Medical reimbursement – Treatment at unapproved hospital – After an accident, the petitioner went to Government Hospital from where he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak being in critical condition – Petitioner got shifted from PGIMS Rohtak to a private hospital because of want of ventilator, which was a lifesaving device – Petitioner was put on ventilator and his life was saved -- Legitimate rights of reimbursement cannot be defeated -- Respondent-Nigam directed to pay the balance of the medical reimbursement to the petitioner within a period of two months.

(Para 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Service matter -- Show cause notice – Writ jurisdiction -- Charge-sheet or the inquiry proceedings cannot be challenged unless there is some adverse order passed in pursuance to the said inquiry proceedings -- Ordinarily no writ lies against the show-cause notice and the writ petition cannot be entertained as a matter of routine.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Recovery of excess pensionary benefits – Undertaking by employee -- Rs.10,40,830/- was paid to the petitioner beyond her entitlement – Where there is an undertaking given allowing the authorities to recover the excess payment, the recovery of the excess amount paid can be done -- Where the pension has been rectified, the recovery is also permissible -- No ground for any interference qua the recovery of the amount – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 11, 15)

Punjab Police Rules, Rule 16.21 -- Absence of constable from duty during suspension – Punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect -- Trial Court set aside the orders passed by the authorities -- Appeal filed by the State was dismissed – Division  Bench in State of Punjab Versus Constable Daljit Singh, 1998 (2) S.C.T. 29’s case, held that the rule is clear and categoric and it requires a Constable to remain present in the lines during suspension -- Respondent/ plaintiff absented from duty for a period of 16 days during suspension – Judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent dismissed.

(Para 3-11)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, Rule 21 -- Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017, Rule 12 -- Appointment of District judges – Midway change of the Rule -- Minimum marks in interview required 30% -- Changed to 50% aggregate marks by Full court resolution -- High Court administration is seeking to deviate from the Rules, such departure is impermissible -- Precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of the recruitment rules without there being a finding on such candidate’s unsuitability, such an action would fail the Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary -- If the High Court is permitted to alter the selection criteria after the performance of individual candidates is assessed, that would constitute alteration of the laid down Rules -- Writ petitions allowed by directing the High Court to make recommendation for those candidates who have been successful as per the merit or select list, for filing up the subsisting notified vacancies without applying the Full Court Resolution that requires each candidate to get 50 per cent aggregate marks.

(Para 9-25)

Service matter -- Stoppage of one annual increment – Limitation – Order of stoppage of one annual increment of the respondent with cumulative effect was passed on 19.12.1983, whereas suit for declaring the said order void abinitio, illegal, beyond the scope of rule of natural justice and the service rules was filed on 13.01.1990 i.e. after a period of more than six years, which is hopelessly time barred.

(Para 15)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Medical re-imbursement – Unapproved hospital – Emergent situation -- PGI rates -- Once a person is suffering from a disease like cancer, any sudden development in health can turn the situation in a critical situation -- Patient cannot wait to seek approval from the Medical Board -- Once, a particular hospital starts the treatment, then shifting of the treatment in between is also not advisable – Wife of the petitioner was suffering from cervical cancer --  Medical reimbursement for treatment taken in an unapproved hospital ordered to be approved at PGI rates.

(Para 7-10)

A. Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 2016, Rule 5 -- Suspension of employee -- Disciplinary proceedings -- In case the disciplinary proceedings are not initiated before expiry of ninety days from the date of suspension, the suspension shall not be valid -- However,  in special circumstances, the period of suspension can be extended beyond ninety days but not beyond one hundred and eighty days -- Such extension has to be for reasons recorded in writing and after seeking approval of the next higher authority -- In the absence of disciplinary proceedings the order becomes invalid as it loses all justification.

(Para 7)

B. Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 2016, Rule 5 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Suspension of employee – Revocation of -- Petitioner placed under suspension vide office order dated 27.07.2017, with immediate effect -- Period of suspension not extended beyond ninety days -- In the light of clear provisions of Rule 5 of the 2016 Rules, impugned suspension order being invalid stands revoked on expiry of ninety days and being bereft of any legal force, it can have no effect on the petitioner’s service.

(Para 8)

Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.3 – Departmental proceedings – Acquittal in criminal case -- Acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle immunity from departmental action -- A police officer may be subjected departmental punishment despite acquittal in criminal proceedings as per exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 -- If acquittal is not based upon exceptions carved out in Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a police officer is entitled to immunity from departmental action -- Appellate authority failed to advert with Rule 16.3 while passing order, the impugned order set aside -- Appellate authority directed to pass afresh order within three months from today.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Challenge to illegality in selection – Participation in selection process – Effect of -- By participating in the process petitioner accepted the procedure for selection, and not the illegality in it that arises on account of wrong implementation of the rule of reservation – Held, petitioner cannot be precluded from the challenging the stated illegality in the selection process by filing the petition.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Challenge to illegality in selection – Non impleading the cleared candidates – Ground of -- No right has been conferred upon such candidates pursuant to clearing the screening test in their respective categories -- Outcome of the petition will only determine as to whether the rule of reservation is being correctly followed for the selection in question -- It will not adversely affect rights of the candidates in any manner as they are still to participate in the process of selection -- Therefore, they need not be impleaded as parties to the petition.

(Para 7)

C. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 226 – Rule of migration in reservation -- Meritorius candidate -- Reserved to unreserved category -- Merit of a reserved category candidate will have to be recognised and in case he/ she is entitled to an un-reserved post, it cannot be denied -- If a candidate is categorised resulting in his/ her ouster from the process of selection before the final merit list is drawn, it will deprive such a candidate from being considered against open/ un-reserved posts on merit -- This flies in the face of the rule of reservation, and cannot be permitted -- There is no justification to categorise the candidates for shortlisting and during the process of selection as, firstly, it compromises merit and, secondly, militates against the rule of migration in reservation.

(Para 8.4-8.6)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 113 -- Disciplinary authority order – Challenge to – Limitation – Disciplinary authority ordered stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 12.04.1984 -- Appellant filed the suit on 18.08.1990, to challenge the correctness of order -- Trial Court held that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is void ab initio and therefore, there is no limitation for filing of such suit, however, the First Appellate Court held that the period of limitation for filing such suit is three years under Article 113 of the schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963 – No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed. State of Punjab and Others v. Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC 1 relied.

(Para 1, 5-9)

Punjab Civil Services Rules (as applicable to Haryana), Rule 3.17 (A) -- Adhoc service – Benefit for pensionary benefits -- Petitioner granted benefit of service, which the petitioner had rendered on adhoc basis to be counted as qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits -- Respondents to recalculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioner along with the arrears and the same be released to him within a period of two months.

(Para 7-19)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in salary – Interest thereupon -- Petitioner was not paid his salary for the period from July, 1992 to August, 1999 and the said salary released only vide cheque dated 05.04.2001 – Held, a person who is performing his duties has a right to receive his salary as and when it is due -- Withholding such salary would be unjustified and interest thereto is required to be paid to the petitioner -- Respondents directed to release the interest on the due salary @12% p.a. as it existed in the year 2001.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in gratuity – Interest thereupon -- Gratuity payment, which was required to be paid in the year 1999, has been paid to the petitioner in February, 2020 -- Interest thereto @ 9% p.a. will have to be paid, as the amount has been wrongfully kept by the respondents with them to which the petitioner was entitled at the relevant time.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1965, Rule 8 – Challenge to recruitment process – Participation in selection – Effect of -- Maintainability of writ -- Petitioner’s challenge to the selection conducted by the respondents in the year 1997 on the basis of interview alone and the petitioner having participated therein and remained unsuccessful cannot be held to be maintained -- A person cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time -- Writ Petition dismissed.

(Para 11, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment to Group C posts -- Change of category – General to EWS -- Petitioner filled up the application form under the general category -- Petitioner appeared in the common eligibility test also under the general category unable to secure the minimum marks in general category –  Petitioner is now raising a grievance with regard to the fact that as he has obtained 46.5 marks and he also belongs to the category of EWS, for which the cutt-off is 38 marks, the petitioner be allowed to change his category from general category to EWS category – Held, said prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

(Para 8)

A. Compassionate appointment policy (Haryana) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment on compassionate grounds – Petitioner was minor at relevant point of time, whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of benefit of compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority or not – Benefit of compassionate appointment can only be claimed within a period of three years of the death of the deceased employee and in case claimant is not eligible to claim the said benefit within a period of three years of the death of the deceased employee, no further claim can be raised.

(Para 7-10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Ex-gratia benefits -- Once, the respondents have passed the order declining the grant of benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of exgratia financial assistance needs to be decided by the respondents as the petitioner cannot be denied both the benefits -- Respondents directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for the grant of exgratia financial assistance.

(Para 11-14)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Departmental proceedings – Criminal proceedings – Pendency of – Effect of -- No further proceedings have taken place in the same in spite of lapse of more than 6 years on account of interim stay – In case the criminal case does not proceed, then departmental proceedings, even if they have been stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to be concluded at an early date – It would not be in the interest of justice to keep the departmental proceedings pending any further – Writ petition dismissed. Capt. M. Paul Anthony’s case Ltd., 1999(3) SCC 679 relied.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Payment of pension after death – Recovery of -- Pension was being paid by the respondent-Bank after the death of the husband of the petitioner -- Said error was attributable to the bank only and not to the petitioner -- Once there is no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner to get an amount, the recovery being done from her is totally contrary to the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih’s case Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Payment of pension after death – Recovery of – Natural justice -- No show cause notice whatsoever has been given to the petitioner before effecting the recovery -- Respondent have taken in writing from the petitioner that her family pension will not be released till she exceeds to the recovery --  Any letter given contrary to the entitlement under law cannot be enforced by the Bank so as to effect the recovery from the petitioner -- Recovery being done from the petitioner set aside -- Any recovery already made be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two months.

(Para 11, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Rejection of representation – Writ petition -- Promotion granted to the private respondents notionally -- Representation of the petitioner rejected by cryptic and non-speaking order with no reference made to the detailed averments made in the representation – Order set aside and respondent no.2 directed to reconsider the matter after taking into consideration the averments made in the representation and also after taking into consideration the rules and regulations of the policy, by passing a speaking order.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Compassionate appointment – Medical opinion -- Candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the medical grounds -- Petitioner was examined two times -- On both the occasions, he was examined by different set of doctors and both times he was found patient of hypertension -- It is settled proposition of law that High Court cannot substitute opinion of medical experts -- Respondent cannot be asked to consider candidature of the petitioner on the basis of reports of civil hospital – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Withdrawal of appointment of deceased employee – Permissibility of -- No order causing prejudice to the dead employee could have been passed by the respondents, muchless, withdrawing the appointment which was given to the employee concerned after due verification in the year 2008 -- Impugned order is contrary to the settled principle of law, set aside -- Respondents  directed to grant the petitioner all the benefits which the widow of the deceased employee will get including the family pension as well as the ex gratia financial assistance with interest @ 6% per annum. Shiksha Devi’s case, CWP-21917-2016 decided on 02.08.2022 relied.

(Para 10-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Recovery from retired employee/ due to retire within 1 year -- Excess payment was made by way of an increment which the petitioner was not entitled -- No recovery should be made from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within 1 year of the order of recovery -- Respondent has effected recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner -- Respondent shall refund the said amount within 2 months -- Impugned order quashed and writ petition allowed. Rafiq Masih’s case (2015) 4 SCC 334 & Tara Chand’s case 2013 (4) SCT 251 (P&H) relied.

(Para 2, 7-10)