Library Home » Important Supreme Court Judgments: August 2018

Important Supreme Court Judgments: August 2018



Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc. 

The decision in Umadevi (3) was intended to put a full stop to the somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally appointing daily wage workers and continuing with them indefinitely.

Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc.


State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal & Another

Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender.


Union of India through its Secretary & Ors. Vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly 

“we conclude that the view of the AFT that the post of DGMS (Army) is to be filled by the officer on the strength of ‘seniority-cum-suitability’, where seniority is a decisive factor and suitability is a secondary factor, is not correct. In the entire discussion resting with the aforesaid view, the Tribunal ignored the fact that it is not only seniority and suitability simpliciter but ‘inter se’ seniority and suitability. The expression ‘inter se’ is totally ignored and there is no discussion thereupon at all, which has led the AFT to take wrong view insofar as interpretation of the criteria laid down in the Circular dated 10th July, 1992 is concerned, which talks of ‘inter se seniority and suitability’.

%d bloggers like this: