Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Rights of Retired Cooperative Bank Employees: Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. vs. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others (2022) INSC 29

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 with Section 17(1C), Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Pension, Service Law, Vested Rights

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Rights of Retired Cooperative Bank Employees Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 29 Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka Can a cooperative bank unilaterally withdraw a pension scheme that its retired employees had been contributing to and benefiting from for decades? The Supreme Court […]

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Rights of Retired Cooperative Bank Employees: Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. vs. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others (2022) INSC 29 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Regarding Teacher Selection: Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Review Petition, Judges, Review Petition, Service Law, Teacher Selection, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Regarding Teacher Selection: Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the selection process for teachers should be concluded based on an earlier notification, despite a subsequent decision allowing for a fresh selection process. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Sunil Kumar Yadav and Others

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Regarding Teacher Selection: Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022)

/ Autonomy of Societies, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pension Benefits, Service Law, Societies Registration Act, 1860, State Government Employees

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees of an autonomous body are entitled to pensionary benefits on par with State Government employees. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Bhagwan & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 10 January 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022)

/ Autonomous Bodies, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Parity in Service, Pension Benefits, Service Law, Societies Registration Act, 1860

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees of an autonomous body are entitled to pensionary benefits on par with state government employees. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Bhagwan & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 10 January 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pension Benefits, Service Law, Service Law with Maharashtra Civil Services Rules

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees of an autonomous body are entitled to pensionary benefits on par with State Government employees. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Bhagwan & Ors. Judgment Date: 10 January 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Normalization of Marks for UP Police Sub-Inspector Exam: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi (2022) INSC 24 (7 January 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Eligibility Criteria, Judges, Normalization of Marks, Recruitment, Service Law, U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015, U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 with Rule 15, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Normalization of Marks for UP Police Sub-Inspector Exam LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the normalization of marks for a multi-session exam should be applied before determining eligibility or only for preparing the final merit list. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Recruitment Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi &

Supreme Court Upholds Normalization of Marks for UP Police Sub-Inspector Exam: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi (2022) INSC 24 (7 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Petitions on NCCF’s Status as ‘State’ in Service Law Matters (07 January 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 12, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Benefits, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit, Writ Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Petitions on NCCF’s Status as ‘State’ LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Co-operative Consumers’ Federation of India Limited (NCCF) is a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus subject to writ jurisdiction. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: N.C.C.F. Employees Union (Regd)(Recognized) & Anr. vs. Union of

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Petitions on NCCF’s Status as ‘State’ in Service Law Matters (07 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Departmental Inquiries: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022)

/ Departmental Inquiry, Judges, M.R. Shah, Right to Representation, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, Service Regulations

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Departmental Inquiries: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee has an absolute right to be represented by a former employee in departmental proceedings. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Departmental Inquiries: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Departmental Inquiries: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022) INSC 10

/ Departmental Inquiries, Employee Rights, Judges, M. R. Shah, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 with Regulation 44, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Departmental Inquiries: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022) INSC 10 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee has the right to be represented by a former employee in departmental proceedings. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena &

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Departmental Inquiries: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022) INSC 10 Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022) INSC 1

/ Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, M. R. Shah, Right to Representation, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, Service Law with Regulation 44

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022) INSC 1 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee facing disciplinary proceedings has the right to be represented by a former employee of the same organization. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) &

Supreme Court Restricts Representation by Ex-Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena (2022) INSC 1 Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns reinstatement order in MSRTC driver dismissal case: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay (2022) INSC 5 (03 January 2022)

/ B. V. Nagarathna, Criminal Law, Criminal Law with Section 279, Disciplinary Proceedings, Dismissal from Service, Industrial Disputes, Judges, Labour Law, M. R. Shah, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 with Section 1(g), Schedule IV, Reinstatement, Service Law, Unfair Labour Practices

Supreme Court overturns reinstatement order in MSRTC driver dismissal case Date of the Judgment: 03 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 5 Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B. V. Nagarathna, J. Can an Industrial Court interfere with a disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss an employee, especially when the employee’s misconduct led to a fatal accident?

Supreme Court overturns reinstatement order in MSRTC driver dismissal case: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay (2022) INSC 5 (03 January 2022) Read Post »

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation upon refusal of promotion in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022)

/ Assured Career Progression Scheme, Financial Upgradation, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, O.M. dated 18.7.2001, O.M. dated 9.8.1999, Office Memorandum, Promotion, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Assured Career Progression Scheme: Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee who refuses a promotion is entitled to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Manju Arora & Anr. Judgment Date: 03 January 2022

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation upon refusal of promotion in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top