Stay updated with the latest High Court rulings on service and labour laws. This concise overview highlights recent cases on pension recovery, withholding of pension, abandonment of service, pay fixation, employees’ compensation, voluntary retirement schemes, recruitment of persons with disabilities, and service benefits of government employees.
Service Law — Pay — Fixation of pay — Obligation of authorities to grant most beneficial pay fixation to army personnel on promotion — Obligation under Cl. 14(b)(iv) of Special Army Instructions, Pay Accounts Office (PAO) to grant most beneficial pay fixation to Army personnel on promotion, even where no option exercised — and whether denial of such benefit warrants interference with Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment — Held, Cl. 14(b)(iv) of Special Army Instructions mandating PAO to ensure pay fixation granting beneficial option where officer fails to exercise choice — Instruction relating to Army officers beneficial in nature and therefore requires an expansive interpretation so as to ensure equitable implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations — Refixation of pay would have caused financial detriment – Tribunal correctly held that respondents entitled to most beneficial option under Cl. 14(b)(iv) of Special Army Instructions — No interference being warranted — Petition dismissed [Union of India v. Mahendra Lal Shrivastava, (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 398]
Service Law — Retirement/Superannuation — Voluntary retirement –Voluntary Separation Scheme — Eligibility under the Golden Gate Scheme for Voluntary Separation, 2009 — Interpretation of “supersession” and legal validity of withdrawal of application post acceptance — Single judge upholding acceptance of his application for voluntary separation — Challenge to — Held, officer is deemed to be superseded if in any promotional exercise a junior in seniority list is promoted to higher cadre while senior is not — Non-acceptance or refusal of promotion does not negate supersession — Focus of scheme is on fact of non-promotion in presence of promotion of juniors regardless of reasons — Therefore such an employee fulfils eligibility criteria under general insurance( Public sector) officers’ golden gate scheme for voluntary Separation, 2009 — Definition of “supersession” under amended Cl. 4(a) of Scheme explicitly includes refusal of promotion if juniors have been promoted — Further held, Scheme explicitly provides that mere submission of an application does not effect separation until acceptance by competent authority — Once acceptance is communicated application attains finality and becomes irrevocable — Applicant is not entitle to withdraw or revoke application post acceptance — Contractual nature of scheme binds parties to term agreed upon precluding unilateral retraction after acceptance — Any subsequent attempt to withdraw application after acceptance is legally impermissible and does not affect finality of separation — Petition dismissed [Anand Kumar Rakesh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 425]
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Disabled or Differently-Abled Persons — Identification of posts — Suitability of candidate — Category of disability (mental illness) — Failure to challenge exclusion at advertisement stage — Doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence — Applicability of — Held, selection of candidate subject to identification of suitable posts — Not all categories of benchmark disabilities, including mental illness, eligible for every advertised post — Failure to question advertisement for exclusion of mental illness bars candidate by doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence — Recruiter returning dossier consistent with administrative and legal framework — Further held, recruitment subject to identification of suitable posts and reporting of vacancies, does not confer any right to appointment in absence of such identification — Petition allowed [CAG v. Amit Yadav, (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 517]
Service Law — CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rr. 8 and 9 — Pension subject to future good conduct — Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension — Withholding of pension/gratuity — Scope of — Requirement of “grave misconduct or negligence” — Absence of pecuniary loss — Relevance of — Held, power to withhold or withdraw pension is conditional and can be exercised only upon proof of grave misconduct or negligence in departmental or judicial proceedings, in accordance with prescribed procedure — Mere allegation of misconduct or disagreement with inquiry findings insufficient — Further held, absence of any charge or finding of pecuniary loss is relevant factor while invoking such power — Petition allowed [Birendra Singh Kunwar v. Union of India, (2026) 1 HCC (Del) 43]
Service Law — Pension — Recovery of pension — Recovery of arrears paid post-retirement pursuant to regularisation of 1997 and 2007 pay scales — Recovery of excess payment from retired employees — Pay revision and excess disbursal — Legality of — Held, recovery from retired employees is impermissible in law especially where excess payments arose from bona fide mistakes by employer without any misrepresentation or fraud on part of employees — Recovery orders sought after retirement or within one year thereof are arbitrary and iniquitous given diminished earnings and increased needs of retirees — Undertakings given by employees at time of pay revisions do not override this protection unless employees were clearly put on notice and bound by such undertakings — Recovery from pensionary benefits of retired employees causes undue hardship and is contrary to principles of equity and judicial discretion — Employer’s mistake should not be visited upon retired employees — Recovery only permissible where excess payment was due to fraud, misrepresentation or detected within short period — Stoppage of superannuation medical benefits on account of alleged recoveries is unjustified — Recovery order and office circulars authorizing recovery from retired employees are invalid and without jurisdiction — Petition partly allowed [Rajendra Alexander v. Union of India, (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 201]
Labour Law — Abandonment of service — Explained — Held, employee’s voluntary relinquishment or abandonment of services is based on relevant factors such as length of absence and other surrounding circumstances — Act of abandoning or relinquishment of services of employees is always a question of intention — Cannot be answered effectively in absence of substantial evidence — For determining whether there was any intention of the workmen to abandon the services it is pertinent to examine testimonies of witnesses and documentary evidence available on record — Petition allowed [Apollo Hospitals Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Malik, (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 162]
Labour Law — Employees Compensation — Percentage of loss of earning capacity vis-à-vis permanent disability arising from injuries — Effect of permanent disability on functioning of entire body and, on actual earning capacity — Ascertainment of, for determining extent of functional disability — Held, all injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity — Percentage of permanent disability with reference to whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be percentage of loss of earning capacity — Doctor who treated injured claimant can give evidence only in regard to extent of permanent disability — Loss of earning capacity to be assessed by tribunal with reference to evidence in entirety — Same permanent upon nature of profession , age , education and other factors — Functional disability has direct relationship with loss of limb — After ascertaining actual extent of permanent disability of claimant based on medical evidence tribunal has to determine whether such permanent disability affected his earning capacity — Tribunal is to first ascertain activity claimant was performing prior to suffering of disability and how such activities are affected subsequent to sustaining disability — Petition partly allowed [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Safat, (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 376]
