Category: Service Law

THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS VS PRANJAL KUMAR SARMA & ORS 28/11/2019

Selection process-the norms existing on the date when the process of selection begins, will control the selection and the alteration to the norms would not affect the ongoing process unless the new Rules are to be given retrospective effect.

Tarakeswar Rewani vs The UCO Bank & Ors [CHC]-26/07/2019

Availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is settled law. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary. The relief under Article 226 being discretionary, it is for the Court to decide, whether or not to entertain an application, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors-02/07/19

Summary General Court Martial-In service matters the past conduct, both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied. The resources of the country are spent on training a soldier to retaliate and fight when the integrity of the nation is threatened and there is aggression. In such grave situation if a soldier turns his back to the challenge, it will certainly amount to cowardice.

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade – 03/05/19

The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.

Service matters

“service” means service within or outside India; (q) “service matters“, in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the […]

Raj Narain Vs. Union of India & Ors.

In all other cases, we do not see any difference between initiation of the criminal proceedings by the department vis-a-vis a criminal case lodged by the police. If an employee is involved in embezzlement of funds or is found indulging in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the employer cannot be mulcted with full back wages on the acquittal of the person by a criminal Court, unless it is found that the prosecution is malicious.

Provident fund amount is payable even after dismissal of the employee- Madras HC

Entitlement for Payment of provident fund — Respondent refusing to pay the provident fund amount payable to him on the ground that the petitioner misappropriated huge amount and caused loss to the Society. — Whether the petitioner can be deprived of the provident fund. — Section 72 of the Act, that was extracted above, makes it clear that the provident fund shall not be liable to attachment or be subject to any other process of any court or other authority. — Furthermore, when the facts are also not in dispute, no useful purpose would be served in driving the petitioner to the revisional authority after two years of filing of the writ petition for claiming provident fund.

Maj. Amod Kumar Vs. Union of India & ANR. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 6, 2018-Writ Petitions under Article 32-Army Service Corps-The Officers belonging to the ASC, Army Ordinance Corps, and Electronic and Mechanical Engineers, i.e. the services stream, do not constitute a common cadre with those serving in the Arms, and Arms Support for the purposes of promotion.4 As a result, they were not entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel against the vacancies created in pursuance of the implementation of the AVS Committee Report.

The Petitioners have contended that the Posting Orders passed by the Respondents posting them to operational areas/units is violative of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioners have, however, failed to substantiate how their Fundamental Rights have been violated. Postings and transfers are a necessary incident of service. Hence, the grievance, if any, cannot be entertained under Article 32.