Service Law

Supreme Court Quashes PTI Selection in Haryana Due to Arbitrary Criteria Changes: Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (2020) INSC 218 (08 April 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Estoppel, Judges, Navin Sinha, Recruitment Rules, Selection Process, Service Law

Supreme Court Quashes PTI Selection in Haryana Due to Arbitrary Criteria Changes Date of the Judgment: 08 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 218 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can a selection process be deemed fair when the criteria are changed arbitrarily mid-way? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a […]

Supreme Court Quashes PTI Selection in Haryana Due to Arbitrary Criteria Changes: Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (2020) INSC 218 (08 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies deputation allowance for NDRF personnel: Union of India vs. R. Thiyagarajan (2020) INSC 188 (3 April 2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Deepak Gupta, Deputation, Deputation Allowance, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 44, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 75, Judges, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Deputation Allowance for NDRF Personnel LEGAL ISSUE: Whether personnel of Central Para Military Forces deputed to the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) are entitled to deputation allowance and from what date. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. R. Thiyagarajan Judgment Date: 3 April 2020 Introduction Date

Supreme Court clarifies deputation allowance for NDRF personnel: Union of India vs. R. Thiyagarajan (2020) INSC 188 (3 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Reservation Act 2018 in Karnataka: B K Pavithra vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Article 142, Constitution of India, Constitutional Law, Creamy Layer Principle, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Order LV, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XII Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Post-Based Reservations, Reservation in Promotions, Service Law, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Reservation Act 2018 in Karnataka: B K Pavithra vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can entertain applications for directions that challenge subsequent government orders implementing a previously upheld act. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: B K Pavithra and Ors. vs. Union of India and

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Reservation Act 2018 in Karnataka: B K Pavithra vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Revised Pay Scale: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Shankar Dubey (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Cut-off Date, Government Employees, Government Order dated 02.02.2007, Government Orders, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Pay Scale, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Revised Pay Scale: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Shankar Dubey (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a cut-off date fixed by the government for implementing revised pay scales can be challenged when the revision is based on an analogy with another organization. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Revised Pay Scale: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vijay Shankar Dubey (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Probationary Judge: Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya (2020)

/ B. R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 311, Judges, Judicial Review, Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 36(3), Probation, S. A. Bobde, Service Law, Service Law with Article 311, Surya Kant, Termination of Service

Rajasthan High Court’s Decision to Terminate Probationary Judge Upheld by Supreme Court LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the termination of a probationary judicial officer’s services was valid and not punitive. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 18 March 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 March 2020

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Probationary Judge: Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court grants Permanent Commission to Women Officers in Indian Navy: Union of India vs. Lt Cdr Annie Nagaraja (2020) INSC 209

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Navy Act 1957, Navy Act 1957 with Section 184, Navy Act 1957 with Section 9, Permanent Commission, Service Law, Short Service Commission

Supreme Court grants Permanent Commission to Women Officers in Indian Navy: Union of India vs. Lt Cdr Annie Nagaraja (2020) INSC 209 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether women Short Service Commissioned (SSC) officers in the Indian Navy are entitled to Permanent Commissions (PCs) and whether the policy restricting PC to specific cadres and future inductees is valid.

Supreme Court grants Permanent Commission to Women Officers in Indian Navy: Union of India vs. Lt Cdr Annie Nagaraja (2020) INSC 209 Read Post »

Supreme Court upholds Disciplinary Authority of Functional General Manager in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Case (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Navin Sinha, Service Law, Service Law with Bharat Petroleum Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff, 1976

Bharat Petroleum Corporation vs. Anil Padegaonkar: Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Authority of Functional General Manager LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Functional General Manager is competent to issue a charge sheet for penalties other than dismissal. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others vs. Anil Padegaonkar [Judgment Date]: March 17, 2020 Date

Supreme Court upholds Disciplinary Authority of Functional General Manager in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Case (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Changes to Delhi Police Recruitment Rules: Subodh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police (2020)

/ Age Limit, Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Changes to Delhi Police Recruitment Rules: Subodh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether amendments to recruitment rules that alter eligibility criteria for departmental candidates are arbitrary and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Subodh Kumar & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Police

Supreme Court Upholds Changes to Delhi Police Recruitment Rules: Subodh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes dismissal of judicial officer: Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of UP (2020)

/ B.R. Gavai, Judges, Judicial Misconduct, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 11(3), Reinstatement, S.A. Bobde, Service Law, Surya Kant, Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 with Rule 3

Supreme Court quashes dismissal of judicial officer: Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of UP (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a judicial officer can be dismissed based on the outcome of their judicial decisions, rather than the decision-making process itself. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Judicial Misconduct Case Name: Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Judgment Date: 06

Supreme Court quashes dismissal of judicial officer: Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of UP (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Upgradation Under MACP Scheme: Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, R. Banumathi, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Upgradation Under MACP Scheme: Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme entitles financial upgradation to the next grade pay or to the grade pay of the next promotional hierarchy. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India and Others

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Upgradation Under MACP Scheme: Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Nomination: Tulsa Devi Nirola vs. Radha Nirola (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Family Pension, Judges, Navin Sinha, Nomination, Service Law, Settlement Deed, Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990, Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 with Rule 35(5), Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 with Rule 38, Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 with Rule 40(6)

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Nomination: Tulsa Devi Nirola vs. Radha Nirola (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a first wife is entitled to a share of the family pension when the deceased husband nominated the second wife as the sole beneficiary, and a settlement deed was executed between the two wives. CASE TYPE: Service/Pension Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Pension Nomination: Tulsa Devi Nirola vs. Radha Nirola (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules for compassionate appointment: N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka (4 March 2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Compassionate Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, R. Banumathi, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 5

Supreme Court Clarifies Compassionate Appointment Rules: N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the norms applicable for compassionate appointment are those existing on the date of death of the government employee or on the date of consideration of the application. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka

Supreme Court clarifies rules for compassionate appointment: N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka (4 March 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top