Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Police Constable Job Due to Prior Criminal Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bunty (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate can be denied a police constable position based on a prior criminal case where they were acquitted with the benefit of doubt. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Criminal Law. Case Name: […]
Supreme Court clarifies pay fixation rules under Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the correct application of the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, specifically concerning the fixation of pay for government servants who received upgraded pay scales under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme
Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Tenure for DGP Appointments: Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the minimum residual tenure for appointment to the post of Director General of Police (DGP). CASE TYPE: Service Law/Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: March
Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority for Deputy Tahsildar Posts in Tamil Nadu Revenue Service: A. Rajagopalan vs. The District Collector (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Implementation of amended service rules and seniority for promotions to Deputy Tahsildar posts. CASE TYPE: Service Law, specifically concerning promotions within the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service. Case Name: A. Rajagopalan ETC. vs.
Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Deny Voluntary Retirement in Public Interest: State of West Bengal vs. Dr. Tonmoy Mondal (2019) Date of the Judgment: March 12, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 178 Judges: Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, Indira Banerjee, JJ. Can a government employee’s request for voluntary retirement be denied if it goes against public
Supreme Court Clarifies Interest on Commuted Value of Pension (CVP) in BSNL Employee Case Date of the Judgment: March 8, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 186 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J. Can a government employee claim interest on delayed payment of Commuted Value of Pension (CVP)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question
Supreme Court Denies Age Relaxation for Outsourced Workers: Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. vs. M. Shivani (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether outsourced workers are entitled to the same age relaxation benefits as direct employees in recruitment processes. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Electronic Corporation of India Limited and Anr vs. M. Shivani and Anr.
Supreme Court clarifies “consequential benefits” in superannuation cases: K. Ananda Rao vs. Sri S.S. Rawat (2019) Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2019 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and M.R. Shah, J. Citation: Not Available What exactly do “consequential benefits” mean when a government employee’s retirement age is increased? The Supreme Court of India recently
Supreme Court directs fresh hearing in ad-hoc teacher appointment case: Krishna Nand Shukla vs. Director of Higher Education (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing a writ petition concerning an ad-hoc appointment of a lecturer by relying on facts and pleadings from a different case. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Krishna
Supreme Court Rules on Full Benefits from Initial Appointment Date in Giridhar vs. State of Maharashtra LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee is entitled to monetary benefits from the date of their initial appointment when the delay in claiming such benefits is not attributable to the employee. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Giridhar vs. The
Supreme Court Clarifies Catch-Up Rule and Seniority in Promotions for Reserved Categories: Sudhakar vs. Noreshwar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the ‘catch-up’ rule applies to promotions of reserved category candidates and their seniority in higher posts. CASE TYPE: Service Law (Promotions and Seniority) Case Name: Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende & Ors [Judgment Date]:
Supreme Court Upholds Army Commander Appointments: Ravi Dastane vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appointment of Army Commanders was based on seniority alone, or on a comparative evaluation of merit as per the selection process. CASE TYPE: Service Law (Army Appointments) Case Name: Lt Gen Ravi Dastane, AVSM, VSM vs. Union of
