This Service Law Roundup of August 2025 provides an overview of important cases and key legislative updates that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the claim of employees for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act for accidents during work commute and its directive to rationalize the pay structure of contractual Assistant Professors. The roundup also highlights the Supreme Court’s ruling on the recruitment of women in the Judge Advocate General branch, the Gujarat High Court’s directive on living wages for Anganwadi workers, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order on pensionary benefits for a deceased employee. These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning appointments, compensation, dismissals, promotions, and other aspects of service law, alongside new legislative reforms like the launch of the PFRDA Connect and the recognition of a uniform pension scheme.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH
UNIFORM PENSION SCHEME RECOGNISED
INSIDE TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT 2025 | Unified Pension Reforms, Foreign Investment Exemptions, and Simplified Assessment Procedures
Inside Taxation Laws Amendment 2025: Unified Pension Reforms, Foreign Investment Exemptions, and Simplified Assessment Procedures. Read more HERE
PFRDA CONNECT LAUNCHED
PENSION FUND REGULATORY & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY | Upgraded PFRDA Connect website: Gateway to improved transparency and accessibility
On 4-8-2025, S. Ramann, Chairperson of Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (‘PFRDA’) launched a new and modernized website under the project name PFRDA CONNECT to enhance Digital Engagement and build an inclusive, technology-driven regulatory ecosystem for India’s pension sector. Read more HERE
APPOINTMENT/RECRUITMENT PROCESS/ RECRUITMENT OF WOMEN
SUPREME COURT | Judge Advocate General Recruitment | Executive can’t restrict number of women candidates/ reserve posts for men under the guise of ‘extent of induction’: SC
In a significant matter the primary issue was whether Union of India after having issued a Notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 allowing induction of women in the Judge Advocate General (‘JAG’) branch, could have denied admission to the Petitioners who secured 4th and 5th rank in the merit list of women candidates in preference to Respondent 3 who secured 3rd rank in the merit list of men candidates, but obtained lesser marks than the female candidate placed at 10th in the Females Merit List. The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Manmohan*, JJ., opined that Executive cannot restrict number of women candidates and/or make a reservation for male officers under the guise of ‘extent of induction’ by way of a policy or administrative instruction. Read more HERE
PUBJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | State ordered to consider ex-CRPF’s plea for appointment in Ex-servicemen category
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondent to appoint him to the post of Male Constable (Driver), a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., disposed of the same and held that the State would look into grievance of the petitioner of his appointment in ex-servicemen category and pass an appropriate order within six months. Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Justice after a decade: Constructive interpretation ensured meritorious PwD candidate’s appointment as ‘Sikshya Sahayaka’
The present petition was filed by the petitioner, an aspirant for the post of teacher, after two rounds of litigation, seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to recommend her name under the category of untrained applicant for ‘Sikshya Sahayakas’ and to issue the appointment order, after quashing the impugned order dated 26-03-2025. A Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., while allowing the petition, held that the expression “untrained SC, ST and PH Candidates” in the Guideline should not be interpreted literally, but given a constructive and purposeful meaning. The Court emphasised that the Guideline was facilitative to disadvantaged candidates like SC, ST, and Physically Handicapped, and a person could not be denied a right otherwise available solely because of being more meritorious due to training. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Former Finance Minister Thomas Issac’s appointment as advisor to Knowledge Economy Mission, upheld; PIL dismissed
The present public interest litigation (‘PIL’) was instituted by the petitioner challenging the Government Order (‘GO’) dated 12-12-2024, appointing Dr. Thomas Issac, the former Finance Minister of Kerala, as the Advisor to the Vijnana Keralam Project. The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar*, CJ., and Basant Balaji, J., dismissing the petition, held that the State Government was within its powers to engage Dr. Issac’s services as the Advisor to the project and held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any failure of public interest. Read more HERE
COMPENSATION IN LIEU OF ACCIDENT AT WORK
SUPREME COURT | Employees can claim compensation under Employment Compensation Act in cases of accidents during work commute
In a case where primary question for consideration was whether the accident which caused the death of the deceased while commuting for place of work could be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., interpreted the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” occurring in Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (‘EC Act’) to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or vice versa, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment was established. Read more HERE
DENIAL OF JOB
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Classic case of misuse of power’; Rs 50,000 cost imposed on State for denying job to candidate already acquitted in criminal case
In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner had sought to set aside an order whereby respondent had rejected his claim for the post of Constable. A Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., observed that the respondent had intentionally and mischievously skipped Clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which was directly applicable to the present case. The police had not filed cancellation report or untraced report, however, investigating agency found the petitioner innocent in a criminal case and had filed supplementary challan disclosing the same. The Court calling the present case ‘a classic case of misuse of power and abuse of process of law’, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondents. Read more HERE
DISMISSAL/TERMINATION FROM SERVICE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Armed forces cannot retain indisciplined member’: Dismissal of constable for absence beyond leave period, upheld
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to set aside of dismissal of his service, a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal J., stated that armed forces cannot retain any indisciplined member. It was not the petitioner’s case that he, for the first time, committed an alleged offence and was subjected to harsh punishment. Thus, the Court stated that the petitioner was a habitual offender and accordingly, upheld his dismissal. Read more HERE
LIVING WAGES
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Anganwadi workers and helpers entitled to living wages: Order treating them on a par with Government employees set aside
In a Letters Patent Appeal (‘LPA’) arising out of an order dated 2-8-2024 (‘impugned order’), wherein it was declared that the Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers shall be treated at par with regularly selected permanent employees holding civil posts in State or Central government, the Division Bench of A.S. Supehia* and R.T. Vachhani, JJ, set aside the impugned order and held that the mode and manner of recruitment of the Anganwadi workers and helpers was vastly different from the recruitment process for regularly selected permanent employees holding civil posts. The Court further considered the arduous nature of work that is done by the Anganwadi workers and helpers and held that they are entitled to a living wage of a minimum of 24,800 and Rs 20,300 per month respectively. Read more HERE
MATERNITY BENEFIT
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Maternity leave allowed to female government employee for her third child; reiterated stand taken by SC in K. Umadevi [2025]
In the present petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Senior Medical Officer (‘SMO’), Civil Hospital, Sirmaur, whereby the representation filed by her for grant of maternity leave was rejected as per Rule 43(1) of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 (‘CCS Rules’), on the ground that at the time of the delivery of the child, she already had two surviving children. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J., relying on K. Umadevi v. State of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204, wherein it was held that both motherhood and childhood were to be considered while providing maternity leave, allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the SMO’s order directing him to grant maternity leave to the petitioner. Read more HERE
PAY
PUNJAB AND HIGH COURT | Punjab Power Corporation can prescribe its cut-off date for implementation of Fifth Pay Commission
In a present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought quashing of Para 3 of the Notification and Order by Respondent 1-State and letter issued by Respondent 2-Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. (‘PSPCL’) through which all benefits of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were withheld from the petitioners. A Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., held that PSPCL being a statutory corporation was entitled to prescribe a cut-off date for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, in view of its financial health. The Court opined that since an effective alternate remedy in the form of appeal was available with the petitioners, which they failed to exercise, the present petition was not maintainable. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | ‘Professors are intellectual backbone of any nation’; SC asks Gujarat Govt to rationalize pay structure of contractual Assistant Professors
While considering these appeals concerning the pay parity of the contractually appointed Assistant Professors, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., allowed the appeals and by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, asked the State to rationalise their pay structure and directed that the contractual Assistant Professors be paid minimum of the scale payable to Assistant Professors.
The Court said that academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual backbone of any nation, as they dedicate their lives to shaping the minds and character of future generations. Their work goes far beyond delivering lessons. However, in many contexts, the compensation and recognition extended to them do not truly reflect the significance of their contribution. “When educators are not treated with dignity or offered respectable emoluments, it diminishes the value a country places on knowledge and undermines the motivation of those entrusted with building its intellectual capital”.
“It is just not enough to keep reciting Gurubramha Gururvishnu Gurdevo Maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers”.
Read more HERE
PENSION/WITHOLDING OF PENSION
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Equating disability with inefficiency is terribly apathetic’; Department ordered to grant pensionary benefits accrued to deceased husband
In the present case, a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order passed by Respondent 3, whereby the invalid pension and family pension availed by the petitioner-wife from January 2019, was withdrawn. A Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., opined that it was regrettable that the respondent-Department had chosen to equate disability sustained by the husband of the petitioner in an accident with inefficiency as this perspective was not only expressly illegal but also terribly apathetic. The Court thus directed the Department to grant the pensionary benefits accrued to the deceased husband of the petitioner including family pension, within eight weeks along with the arrears accumulated at an interest of 7.5% p.a. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Rs.50,000 fine imposed on State for unjustified withholding of pension, citing violation of litigation policy
In a petition filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order charging him after his retirement for events that took place 14 years ago during 2010-2011, alleging negligence in execution of Optimum Utilization of Vacant Government Land Scheme project at Verka Milk Plant, ilk Plant, Amritsar, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar J. disposed of the same holding that it violated Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II. Since the Petitioner’s pensionary dues were unjustifiably withheld, the Court directed the Respondents to pay costs of Rs 50,000 to the Petitioner. Read more HERE
PROMOTION
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Maths Lecturer to get promoted under 2014 Placement Rules due to quashing of rejection order
The present petition was filed by the petitioner, a Mathematics Lecturer of a Non-Government Aided Junior College, challenging the order of the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, which denied his claim for promotion to Senior Lecturer and Reader. A Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., while allowing the petition, quashed the rejection order that denied promotion to the Lecturer under the Orissa Non-Government Aided College Lecturers’ Placement Rules, 2014 (‘2014 Placement Rules’) and held that the Lecturer satisfied the eligibility conditions under the 2014 Rules, and further directed the State to grant the benefits prospectively. Read more HERE
REDEPLOYMENT/ RESTORATION OF APPOINTMENT
SUPREME COURT | ‘Employer’s discretion ends where employee’s dignity begins’; Supreme Court directs TSRTC to redeploy colour-blind employee
The instant appeal challenged the decision by Division Bench of Hyderabad High Court for State Telangana, whereby it had set aside the direction to Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to provide the appellant, who is colour blind, with an alternative employment. The Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar*, JJ., allowed the appeal by holding that the Appellant was prematurely retired from service on medical grounds without any meaningful effort by the Corporation to explore his suitability for alternate employment. This action was taken in disregard of Clause 14 of the binding Memorandum of Settlement dated 17-12-1979 and without adherence to principles of fairness or accommodation and is therefore, unsustainable in law. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Domicile certificate cancelled without hearing; BSF Constable’s provisional appointment restored
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his provisional appointment to the post of Constable in the Border Security Force (‘BSF’), which was withdrawn following the cancellation of his domicile certificate by the State Authority. A Single Judge Bench of Aniruddha Roy, J., quashed both the cancellation of the domicile certificate and the appointment offer, holding that the absence of a hearing before cancelling the domicile certificate violated principles of natural justice and equity. The Court ordered the restoration of the petitioner’s appointment offer. Read more HERE
REGULARISATION OF DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES
SUPREME COURT | “State cannot balance budgets on daily wage earners’ backs”; Supreme Court Orders full regularisation of Class III & IV employees’ posts & financial benefits
While addressing the issue concerning denial of rights to persons engaged as ad-hoc/daily wage employees in public institutions, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., said that State (Union and State Governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. Taking note of the Appellants, who were hired as daily wagers by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992, and whose nature of service was found to be perennial, the Court thus issued elaborate directions to grant them the relief of fully regularising their posts and financial benefits.
The Court emphasised that State cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions and pointed out that the long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.
“Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines”.
Read more HERE
