What is the date of enforcement of the new Labour Codes?

The Four Labour Codes will come into effect on 21 November 2025, marking a historic step in India’s labour governance.

Is an illness presumed to be service-related if no disease was recorded at the time of entry into military service?

Yes. If no illness was recorded at the time of enrolment, any disease developed later is presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service, unless conclusively proved otherwise by the employer.

Does One Rank One Pension apply to all retired High Court Judges?

Yes. The Supreme Court has upheld uniform and equal pension for all retired High Court Judges, irrespective of their date of retirement.

In merit-cum-seniority promotions, which factor prevails?

Merit and ability take precedence. Seniority becomes relevant only when merit is approximately equal.

Can reserved category candidates migrate to general seats after availing relaxation?

Yes, unless the applicable recruitment rules impose an explicit embargo on such migration.

Is non-payment of salary despite work performed a violation of fundamental rights?

Yes. Withholding wages despite work performed amounts to forced labour and violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.

Can transfers be influenced by political recommendations?

No. Politicised transfers violate service rules, administrative fairness, and constitutional principles.

Can eligibility criteria be altered after a recruitment advertisement is issued?

No. Altering eligibility criteria after issuance of a recruitment advertisement is impermissible and unconstitutional.

Can the State deny pensionary benefits citing financial stringency?

No. Financial constraints cannot be used as a justification to deny pensionary benefits or to create discriminatory classifications among pensioners.

Labour and Service Law Developments in 2025: Key Judgments and Legislative Updates

This yearly roundup covers the most significant labour and service law developments in 2025, including landmark judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, High Courts, major legislative reforms, and key policy clarifications affecting the service and labour law regime in India.

HIGHLIGHT OF THE YEAR

IMPLEMENTATION OF LABOUR CODES

A Historic Leap in Labour Reform: India Implements Four Labour Codes from 21 Nov 2025

On 21-11-2025, the Ministry of Labour & Employment announced the implementation of the Four Labour Codes, marking a historic step in India’s labour governance. The Four Labour Codes will come into effect on 21-11-2025. Read More HERE

Also Read: A Complete Guide to Four Labour Codes: Key Reforms, Compliance Checklists & Impact on India’s Workforce

SERVICE LAW

Unified Pension Scheme allows onetime Switch Facility for reverting to the National Pension System

On 2-9-2025, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions notified the Central Civil Services (Implementation of the Unified Pension Scheme under the National Pension System) Rules, 2025 to regulate the methods of implementation of Unified Pension Scheme as an option under the National Pension System for the employees of the Central Government who are covered under the National Pension System. The provision came into force on 2-9-2025. Read More HERE

Unified Pension Scheme Extension: Eligibility, Procedure, and Deadlines for New Entrants

On 16-9-2025, the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (‘PFRDA’) announced an extension of the Unified Pension Scheme (‘UPS’) option for newly appointed Central Government employees. The last date to exercise the one-time option under NPS to opt for UPS is 30-9-2025. Read More HERE

Karnataka Approves Monthly Paid Menstrual Leave for Women Employees

On 9-10-2025, the Karnataka Government approved a groundbreaking policy granting one-day paid menstrual leave each month to women employees across both government and private sectors. Under the Menstrual Leave Policy-2025, Karnataka has introduced paid menstrual leave aimed at fostering workplace inclusivity and supporting women’s health needs. Read More HERE

Govt rolls out new Unified Pension Scheme under NPS for Central Govt Employees

On 18-6-2025, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Service introduced ‘Unified Pension Scheme (UPS)’ to extend the pension benefits and retirement gratuity and death gratuity benefits to the employees of Central Government under the National Pension System (NPS). Read More HERE

Clause-by-Clause Analysis of Employees’ Provident Funds (Amendment) Scheme, 2025

On 10-2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified Employees’ Provident Funds (‘EPF’) (Amendment) Scheme, 2025, introducing a special compliance initiative titled the Employees’ Enrolment Campaign, 2025. The scheme will come into effect on 1-11-2025 and will remain operative till 30-4-2026. Read More HERE

Cabinet approves 3% Increase in DA and DR

On 1-10-2025, the Central Government approved the release of an additional instalment of 3% Dearness Allowance (DA) to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief (DR) to Pensioners. The revised rates will be effective from 1-7-2025. Read More HERE

Govt revises reservation framework in Ladakh vide UT of Ladakh Reservation (Amendment) Regulations, 2025

On 2-6-2025, the President assented Union Territory of Ladakh Reservation (Amendment) Regulation, 2025, to redefine reservation limits and criteria for government jobs and educational institutions in Ladakh. This amendment comes into effect on 3-6-2025. Read More HERE

LABOUR LAW

Enforcement dates of Labour Codes: Social Security, Wages, OSHWC & Industrial Relations — Key Notifications

On 21-11-2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment brought into force several key provisions of the four labour codes—Social Security Code, 2020, Wages Code, 2019, Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, and Industrial Relations Code, 2020—marking a significant step in consolidating and simplifying India’s labour laws. This enforcement repeals multiple earlier legislations, streamlining compliance and ensuring uniformity across social security, wages, occupational safety, and industrial relations. Read More HERE

FAQs on the Labour Codes: Everything Employers and Employees Need to Know!

On 30-12-2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the detailed set of FAQs on the Labour Codes, crucial for clarifying provisions, compliance requirements, and dispelling myths, helping employers, employees, and professionals navigate the changes introduced by the Codes. Read More HERE

Corrigendum to Code on Social Security, 2020 Enforcement Dates: Clarity on EPS, EPF Provisions

On 19-12-2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified a corrigendum notification to its earlier notification regarding enforcement dates of the Code on Social Security, 2020. Read More HERE

Right to Disconnect Bill 2025 tabled in Lok Sabha: Will India move towards better Work-Life Balance?

On 5-12-2025, the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, was tabled in the Lok Sabha. This Bill was introduced by Mrs. Supriya Sule, Member of Parliament, proposing rights that aim to pay respect employees’ personal space by recognizing disengaging or disconnect as their legal right, while allowing companies flexibility to negotiate terms suited to their work culture. It also addresses unpaid overtime, mandates policies for remote work, and introduces counselling and digital detox initiatives to mitigate the adverse effects of hyper-connectivity. Read More HERE

Industrial Relations Code (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2025 — Continuity of Adjudication for Pending Cases

On 8-12-2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the Industrial Relations Code (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2025 to ensure smooth transition and provide clarity on functioning adjudicatory bodies. The provisions came into force on 8-12-2025. Read More HERE

Towards Social Security for All: EPFO’s Employees’ Enrolment Scheme 2025

On 1-11-2025, Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister for Labour & Employment, launched the Employees’ Enrolment Scheme 2025 during the 73rd Foundation Day celebrations of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (‘EPFO’). This initiative aims to promote voluntary compliance and extend social security coverage to all eligible employees. The Scheme shall remain open for six months, from 1-11-2025 to 30-4-2026. Read More HERE

New Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme expands insurance coverage for EPF members

On 18-7-2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the Employees’ Deposit-Linked Insurance (Amendment) Scheme, 2025 (EDLI Scheme) to mark a significant step towards enhancement to the social security benefits available to members of the Employees’ Provident Fund. The provisions of this Scheme came into effect on 19-7-2025. Read More HERE

Gujarat Shops and Establishments Amendment Ordinance 2025: Key Changes in Employment Regulations and Service Conditions

On 16-12-2025, the Gujarat Government notified the Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, which raises the applicability threshold, permits women to work at night with safety safeguards, and increases the permissible overtime limit per quarter. This Ordinance came into force on 16-12-2025. Read More HERE

Madhya Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act Amended: Central Inspection System and Digital Registration Introduced Under 2025 Second Amendment

On 15-12-2025, the Government of Madhya Pradesh notified the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Act, 2025, aimed at modernizing compliance processes and enhancing transparency in labour administration. This Amendment Act came into force on 15-12-2025. Read More HERE

Digital Compliance and Worker Safety in Focus: Maharashtra Factories (Second Amendment) Rules, 2025

On 3-10-2025, the Government of Maharashtra notified the Maharashtra Factories (Second Amendment) Rules, 2025, aiming to digitize factory compliance processes and strengthen worker safety, especially for women and older employees, through updated forms, licensing, and health protocols. Read More HERE

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

APPOINTMENT, RECRUITMENT & SELECTION

SUPREME COURT | Why Supreme Court decided to quash recruitment of 1091 Asst. Professors & 67 Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab

While deciding the appeal challenging Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision to uphold the selections made by the State of Punjab for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., quashed the entire recruitment and directed the State to initiate the recruitment process as per the 2018 UGC Regulations which are now in force in the State of Punjab. The Court pointed out that the State miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process and to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question. The Court said that quashing of the entire recruitment process may cause hardships for the selected candidates, but at the same time, there is no equity in the favour of selected candidates as challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process and appointments were subject to the Court orders. A gross illegality like the present recruitment cannot be ignored. [Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1420] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | State Govt cannot whimsically interfere in recruitment processes governed/driven by Statutes and Rules via Executive Orders: Supreme Court

While considering the appeals revolving around cancellation of the ongoing recruitment processes by the State on the pretext of a policy decision, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ., held that when recruitment processes are held under strength of the relevant Statutes and Rules framed under such Statutes, then it cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the State to interfere in it through executive orders, without adhering to the principles of consistency and predictability, which are warranted by the rule of law and are pillars of non-arbitrariness. [Partha Das v. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Visually impaired candidates eligible to participate in judicial service examination: Supreme Court

In a suo motu cognizance of a letter petitions by the visually impaired candidates, challenging the legality of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (‘Rules, 1994’), as amended on 23-06-2023, and Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (‘Rules 2010’) the Division Bench of JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ. held that visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in selection for the posts under the judicial service. [In Re: Recruitment of visually impaired in judicial services, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481] Read More HERE

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. [Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1668] Read more HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Graduation and Post-Graduation qualifications cannot be considered as preferential qualifications for Anganbadi Karyakatri post: Allahabad HC

In a petition filed praying for consideration of petitioner’s candidature for the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri by allowing her to submit her Post Graduation degree which she could not submit due to technical flaw while filling up online application form, Ajit Kumar, J., held that the provision for preparing the merit list based on Post Graduation qualification was directory in nature. Hence, the respondents were directed to prepare the merit list strictly in accordance with the minimum qualification prescribed, allotting marks based on the High School and Intermediate qualifications as per the advertisement issued, and not based on Graduation or Post Graduation, as no preferential qualification was prescribed under the relevant Government Order. [Chandani Pandey v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 1578] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘No longer in times when discrimination can be made between male and female’; Delhi High Court directs woman’s appointment to vacant IAF post

In a petition seeking direction to the respondents to fill up the 20 unfilled “Air Force (i) Flying” vacancies for which the Examination Notification dated 17-5-2023 (‘Examination Notification’) was notified, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., stated that the petitioner being in possession of a “fit to fly” certificate and having cleared all rounds of examinations, was eligible for appointment. The Court stated that it was not permissible for anyone to interpret or administer any stipulation, advertisement or notification in a manner which would be gender skewed. Thus, the Court stated that the respondents were not justified in keeping 20 vacancies unfilled and directed that the petitioner be appointed against one of the unfilled 20 Air Force (i) Flying vacancies relating to the Examination Notification. [Archana v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5745] Read More HERE

GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Re-evaluation beyond specified period anathema to finalization of result’; Gujarat HC directs appointment of 2019 GPSC exam candidates illegally rejected after succeeding

In a letters patent appeal filed by candidates who succeeded the 2019 Gujarat Public Service Commission (‘GPSC’) exam for recruitment to Class-III Posts but were later denied appointment due to re-evaluation of marks making them unqualified for the want of less than one mark, the Division Bench of A.S. Supehia* and Gita Gopi, JJ., allowed the appeal holding that there was no provision allowing the re-evaluation, much less beyond the 30-day statutory re-checking period. [Umeshkumar Pratapsinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 1615] Read More HERE

KERALA HIGH COURT | Kerala HC clarifies Government sanction for teaching posts in private aided colleges following 2005 amendment in University Acts

The present writ application addressed a reference by the Division Bench of the Court regarding whether Government sanction was required for the approval of appointments in private aided colleges affiliated to the Universities. A Three-Judge Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque*, Shoba Annamma Eapen & S. Manu, JJ., while distinguishing between ‘sanction of posts’ and ‘approval of appointments’, clarified that if the post was not expressly abolished, the question of obtaining prior sanction from the Government did not arise for approval of the writ petitioner’s appointment made in 2015, which the University granted on the basis of the workload assessment of the preceding year. [State of Kerala v. Anas N., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 6642] Read More HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | No invalidation to one-year LLM degree for appointment in Public Departments or Universities: Madras High Court

In a writ petition filed to quash the provisional selection list of candidates published by the Teachers Recruitment Board (‘TRB’) pursuant to TRB notification, and consequently directing TRB to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor against the vacancy in Human Rights department, R.N. Manjula, J. quashed the selection list, and directed TRB to include the petitioner’s name in the selection list. The State was also directed to release the appointment order to the petitioner, giving her retrospective seniority from the date of appointment of candidates who secured fewer marks than her, with notional effect from the date of their appointment. [Sangeetha Sriraam v. Teachers Recruitment Board, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 2080] Read More HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Selection done in slipshod manner’; Punjab and Haryana HC holds Haryana’s socio-economic bonus marks in civil service exams as unconstitutional

In a batch of over a dozen writ petitions filed by civil service candidates against the impugned advertisement issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (‘Commission’) granting a socio-economic criteria granting bonus marks to certain class of persons, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., allowed the petitions, holding that the notification dated 11-06-2019 (‘the notification’) which created the criteria for granting such bonus marks was violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and thus, the advertisement based on such notification was also unconstitutional. The Court also provided several directions concerning the appointments of new and old candidates. [Neeraj v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2602] Read More HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Could not have departed from NCTE Notification’; Punjab and Haryana HC directs appointment of Junior Basic Teachers unjustly declared ineligible despite qualification

In a batch of civil writ petitions filed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh against the impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) whereby it allowed the original applications (‘OAs’) filed by the respondent candidates and directed Chandigarh Administration (‘the Administration’) to consider their candidature recruitment as Junior Basic Teachers (‘JBT’), the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., rejected the petitions, holding that it was incumbent on the Administration to adopt and frame their Rules in conformity with the National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’) Notification and a departure could not have been made by excluding Bachelor of Elementary Education (‘B. El. Ed.’) as a qualification equivalent to Diploma in Elementary Education (‘D. El. Ed.’). [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Sakshi Malik, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2541] Read More HERE

CANCELLATION OF CANDIDATURE

SUPREME COURT | Principle of ‘over-qualification is not disqualification’ cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid rules or norms: SC

While considering the instant appeal concerning Kerala High Court’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s petitions challenging the cancellation of his appointment as ‘Boat Lascar’ in pursuance of the order passed by Kerala Administrative Tribunal; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ., held that the instant case was not fit and proper case where the Court exercises of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, since the appellant gained entry through a process which was not legal and valid. The Court emphasised that exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution would have been warranted in the instant case if palpable injustice was demonstrated. The Court stated that over-qualification cannot be a disqualification. [Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 711] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court upholds cancellation of Junior Court attendant candidature over criminal allegations despite acquittal

A petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21-10-2022, issued by the Supreme Court Recruitment Cell, whereby his candidature for the post of Junior Court Attendant (JCA) in the establishment of the Supreme Court of India was cancelled as well as seeking a direction for his appointment to the said post. Prateek Jalan, J., held that there was no infirmity in the decision of the Supreme Court Recruitment Cell to cancel the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Junior Court Attendant (JCA). [Prayas Tyagi v. Supreme Court of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2343] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | CAPF Examination Rule mandating strict cut-off period for issuance of OBC-NCL certificate declared invalid: Delhi HC

In a writ petition filed by candidates appearing for the Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) (‘CAPF(AC)’) examination, belonging to the category of Other Backward Class- Non-Creamy Layer (‘OBC-NCL’) challenging cancellation of their candidature, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J and *Om Prakash Shukla, J held that Rule 21.2 of the CAPF (AC) Examination Rules (‘impugned rule’), mandating submission of OBC-NCL certificates issued is a prescribed time frame was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court directed the Union Public Service Commission (‘respondents’) to consider the candidature of the aggrieved petitioners. [Raghavendra Singh v. Union Public Service Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9058] Read More HERE

ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Suppression of criminal antecedents & failure to disclose pending FIRs has significant consequences’; Cancellation of candidature for Junior Overman post, upheld

In a civil writ petition challenging the cancellation of petitioner’s candidature for the position of Junior Overman (Trainee) by the Deputy General Manager, MPP, Recruitment & PR, NLC India Limited, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. stated that a candidate who suppresses material information or provides false declarations does not possess an unfettered right to seek appointment. The Court explained that suppression of criminal antecedents and failure to disclose pending FIRs has significant consequences, particularly for positions that demand trust and integrity, hence, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned cancellation of candidature. [Manoj Rohidas v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 2791] Read more HERE

Compassionate appointment

SUPREME COURT | Compassionate appointment to be considered in “hand-to-mouth” cases where family struggles to pay basic expenses, if other conditions are satisfied: SC

In a civil appeal against Kerala High Court’s decision dismissing an intra-court appeal preferred by the Canara Bank and upheld the Single Judge’s decision for appointment under the scheme of 1993 in the sub-staff cadre within two months, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decisions. However, in the interest of justice, the Court directed for payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the respondent. [Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290] Read More HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Allahabad HC questions compassionate appointment to stepmother overlooking minor daughter’s welfare; calls for collective responsibility towards girl child

In a writ petition filed by a minor daughter of a decease government servant against her stepmother who had been granted compassionate appointment without any arrangements for her maintenance, the Single Judge Bench of Manju Rani Chauhan, J., directed the respondent authorities to file an affidavit annexing the stepmother’s affidavit wherein she had expressed willingness to provide Rs 5000 as maintenance to the petitioner and mentioning the details of other measures that would be taken for the safety, security, and maintenance of the petitioner. [Varsha v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 7548] Read More HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Can an heir be appointed to a Lower Post than the Deceased? Inside Bombay High Court’s ruling on Compassionate Appointment

In a petition filed by the petitioner, challenge was raised to the rejection of approval to his compassionate appointment as a Peon in a fully aided Secondary School, where he was appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a permanent and approved Junior Clerk. However, the Education Officer declined approval on the ground that he was appointed to a lower post than that held by his deceased father. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., while allowing the petition, held that the reasons assigned by the Education Officer in the order were unsustainable. The Court emphasised that there can be no embargo on grant of approval to a compassionate appointee who is appointed on a post for which he has necessary qualifications. [Sandip Keda Garud v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4331] Read More HERE

CHHATTISGSARH HIGH COURT | Compassionate appointment is one-time benefit, no betterment of position allowed; Chhattisgarh HC reiterates while rejecting post upgradation plea

In a writ petition filed by the petitioner/ Gardener seeking upgradation to the post of Driver, a Single Bench of Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., rejected the petition, holding that once the petitioner has been appointed, even under protest, to the post of Gardener, the claim for up-gradation to the post of Driver was not legally sustainable since his appointment was compassionate based. [Abhinay Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 4991] Read More HERE

GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Compassionate appointment policy cannot be misused’; Mother’s plea seeking compassionate appointment for major son from LIC, rejected: Gujarat HC

In an application filed by the petitioner against the rejection of her representations seeking compassionate appointment for her son from Life Insurance Corporation (‘LIC’), a Single Judge Bench of Nirzar S. Desai, J., dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner had no right to claim compassionate appointment on behalf of her major son. The Court also held that her application deserved to be rejected on the ground of suppression of facts because she suppressed material facts about her family’s financial condition which was one of the paramount conditions for the grant of compassionate appointment. [Ramilaben Vitthalbhai Jambu v. LIC India, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 921] Read more HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Madras High Court cracks down on bureaucratic inaction in compassionate appointments; Initiates contempt proceedings

In a series of writ petitions concerning compassionate appointments, a Single Judge Bench of Battu Devanand, J. strongly criticised the bureaucratic inaction in implementing court orders, noting that the case reflected a “lethargic attitude” on the part of several officials. The Court observed that such indifference demonstrates a lack of regard for the common man and underprivileged litigants, who continue to be denied the benefits of judicial relief due to administrative apathy. The Court expressed its intent to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. [V.Nithya v. Tamil Nadu State Transport, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 2617] Read More HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rajasthan High Court | Appointed on compassionate ground; terminated after 15 years for having 3 children: A travesty of Justice

In a Civil Writ Petition, filed by the son of a martyr appointed on compassionate basis, challenging the termination order on ground of ineligibility for having 3 children at the time of appointment, a Single-Judge Bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur, J., quashed and set aside the termination order, holding that if a person has served the department for fifteen long years, it would be a travesty of justice to terminate his services by treating him ineligible for appointment, particularly when he did not secure employment by unfair means. The Court emphasised that compassionate appointment policies, designed for humanitarian ends, should not be enforced with undue rigidity to cause injustice. [Sagar Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3333] Read More HERE

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT | Authority empowered to inflict minor penalties, under CCS CCA Rules, can issue charge sheet even for imposition of major penalties: Supreme Court

The present appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 18-11-2022 (‘the impugned order’) passed by the Karnataka High Court (‘the High Court’), whereby the order dated 23-6-2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), was set aside. The Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ., held that Rule 13(2) read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘CCS CCA Rules’), made it clear that an authority empowered to inflict minor penalties, like in the present case, General Manager, could issue a charge sheet even for imposition of major penalties. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and opined that initiation of disciplinary proceedings could be done by Member Telecommunications Commission as well as by General Manager, Telecommunication. [Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1510] Read More HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Disciplinary action against Superintendents of Police unjustified for Investigating Officer’s failure to file chargesheet/closure report: Madras HC

In a case concerning disciplinary proceedings against Superintendents of Police for alleged lapses in monitoring a 2015 jewel missing investigation, a Division Bench of N. Sathish Kumar* and M. Jothiraman, JJ., allowed the appeal filed by the State authorities, holding that the duty to file reports lay with the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) and that negligence could not be attributed to the Superintendents of Police merely on account of their supervisory role. The Court accordingly set aside the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Superintendents of Police who had held office from 2015, while making it clear that all other directions of the Single Judge were to be scrupulously followed by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu. [State of T.N. v. Vijayarani, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 10030] Read More HERE

DISMISSAL, DISCHARGE AND REMOVAL

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Not a case of Sexual Harassment”: Allahabad High Court remits MNNIT Lecturer’s “shockingly disproportionate” dismissal for Consensual Relationship with ex-student

In a petition filed by the petitioner, a Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering in Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad (‘MNNIT’) aggrieved by the order of removal from service based on a report of One Man Inquiry Commission (‘Commission’) which called his affair with an ex-student an immoral conduct, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., held that it was not a case of sexual harassment, rather a case of a consensual relationship which continued even after the complainant left the Institution for almost three years. Thus, the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. Accordingly, the Court remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order with respect to the quantum of the punishment. [Rajesh v. Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8076] Read More HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Relationship pre-dated her admission’; Madhya Pradesh HC grants relief to IGNTU Professor alleged to be in an illicit relationship with student

In a petition filed by a professor against his dismissal by the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak (‘IGNTU’) for allegedly having an illicit relationship with a student, the Single Judge Bench of Vivek Jain, J., partly allowed the petition, holding that the relationship between the parties pre-dated her admission in the IGNTU and only one of the six charges could amount to misconduct. [Rakesh Singh v. Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 7886] Read More HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Probationary Judicial Officer’s discharge for unsatisfactory performance, even if preceded by complaints, not punitive without misconduct allegations: MP High Court

In a writ petition challenging a Probationary Judicial Officer’s discharge under Rule 11(c) of the M.P. Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (1994 Rules) for unsatisfactory performance allegedly arising from various allegations and complaints including instituting Contempt of Court proceedings against Bar members, taking their apologies, having them touch their ears and do sit-ups for apology, same treatment being given to Police personnel appearing in his Court, etc., a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait CJ., and Vivek Jain*, J., dismissed the petition and held that the discharge was not punitive and no procedural unfairness occurred. The Court held that the High Court, as employer, is within its authority under Rule 11(c) of the 1994 Rules to assess the petitioner’s overall suitability and found him unfit for confirmation. [Kaustubh Khera v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4004] Read More HERE

ORISSA HIGH COURT | Orissa HC awards compensation to workman unjustly dismissed from service by SBI for withdrawing money from deceased’s account

The petitioner, State Bank of India (‘Bank’), filed the present writ petition challenging the award given by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (‘Tribunal’), wherein it directed reinstatement of a Messenger (‘Workman’) with 50% back wages after his dismissal for allegedly facilitating withdrawal from a deceased person’s account. The Division Bench of Harish Tandon, CJ., and K.R. Mohapatra*, J., held that the materials on record were not sufficient to hold the Workman guilty of any misconduct alleged against him and the departmental inquiry was not conducted with all fairness and in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the Bank to pay Rs 5 lakh towards lump sum compensation in lieu of his reinstatement and 50% of the back wages, as directed by the Tribunal. [State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Behera, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2627] Read More HERE

EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Constituent Institution employees have no absolute right to General Provident Fund Scheme benefit: Allahabad High Court

In a petition filed by employees of Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute (‘GBPSSI’), constituent institution of University of Allahabad (‘AU’), challenging University Grants Commission’s (UGC) rejection of their entitlement to all benefits granted to a Central University employees including the benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., held that in absence of any specific provision for General Provident Fund Scheme only on ground that institution became constituent of Allahabad University, petitioners could not be granted benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme. [S.K. Pant (Dr.) v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7565] Read More HERE

CHHATTISGSARH HIGH COURT | Chhattisgarh HC upholds order releasing Retired Municipal Officer’s gratuity withheld sans inquiry on allegation of misappropriating ₹ 10 Lakhs

In an intra-court appeal filed by the State against the impugned order wherein the Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondent granting him the entire amount of his gratuity, which had been withheld by the State due to allegations of misappropriation of funds, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., dismissed the appeal holding that the Single Judge did not commit any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference as not only was such recovery impermissible in law but also there was no pre-retirement inquiry regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds by the respondent. [State of Chhattisgarh v. B.P. Tiwari, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 707] Read More HERE

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Jharkhand HC: Special Auxiliary Police personnel are contractual appointees with a maximum tenure of 7 years, not entitled to superannuation benefit

While hearing writ petitions concerning the entitlement of personnel engaged under the Special Auxiliary Police (‘SAP’) scheme, a Single Judge Bench of Ananda Sen, J., held that such personnel were contractual appointees with a maximum tenure of seven years and not regular government servants. The Court observed that the scheme itself did not prescribe any age of retirement, and therefore these personnel could not claim superannuation benefits equivalent to regular government employees. Consequently, the petitions seeking parity in service benefits were dismissed. [Francis Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3830] Read More HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Employer’s obligation to pay gratuity within 30 days not contingent on employee’s written application post-exit: MP High Court

In a bunch of writ appeals challenging the order dated 11-10-2021 passed by the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Payment of Gratuity Act) directing the appellant-employer to pay the gratuity with interest, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain,* J., dismissed the appeals and held that employer’s statutory obligation to pay gratuity begins immediately upon the employee’s exit, and interest accrues if payment is delayed. The Court directed the appellant-employer to pay the amount of gratuity along with interest as ordered by the Controlling Authority within 30 days, if not already paid. [Little World Higher Secondary School v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3266] Read More HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | State can’t deny honorarium to frontline workers compelled to work during COVID-19 pandemic

In a petition filed by frontline workers compelled to work during COVID-19 pandemic seeking payment of honorarium with interest, a Single-Judge Bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., while recognising petitioners’ services rendered during the COVID-19 crisis, held that since the petitioners were compelled to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents cannot run away from their liability to pay their honorarium. [Leela Mittal v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2094] Read more HERE

EMPLOYMENT DUES TO LEGAL HEIRS

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Andhra Pradesh High Court directs payment of pending dues to brother of deceased Government Teacher after 37-year legal battle

A petition was filed seeking to issue an order or direction declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not paying the death benefits of an individual who died in harness as 2nd Grade Teacher in St. Anthony Elementary School, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and consequently direct the respondent authorities to pay the death benefits in favor of the petitioner. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., directed the respondent authorities to reconstruct the service register within one month and to treat the petitioner’s claims as correct and disburse all admissible death benefits to him within two months. [Darana Harry v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1759] Read More HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Only legally recognised heirs, preferably through a succession certificate, can stake a claim to deceased’s employment dues: MP High Court

In a writ petition filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by legal representative of the deceased seeking multiple reliefs related to employment benefits, a single-judge bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., disposed of the petition and held that the only legally recognised heirs, preferably through a succession certificate, can stake a claim to the deceased’s dues, which is petitioner’s case. [Shiva v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3175] Read More HERE

FAMILY PENSION

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Himachal Pradesh HC grants notional pension to family after regularising deceased employee’s 13 years of daily-wage service

The present petition was filed by the wife of the deceased employee (‘wife’), claiming notional pension and notional family pension and actual family pension on account of her husband’s service as the Fitter, which was denied, because according to the Authorities, he had not rendered 10 years of qualifying service. A Single Judge Bench of Ranjan Sharma, J., relying on cases entitling the Class-III and Class-IV Employees for pension or family pension benefits, ordered pension to the employee notionally with effect from the date of his retirement and thereafter, the notional family pension would accrue to his wife from the date of his death till 31-12-2017. Further, the actual family pension would be released from 01-01-2018 onwards. [Sudarshna Devi v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4945] Read More HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Divorced daughters eligible for Freedom Fighter Pension like unmarried daughters: Madras HC

In an appeal filed by the petitioner, the daughter of a freedom fighter, challenging the Central Government’s refusal to grant Central Samman Pension under the Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (‘Pension Scheme’) based on the Revised Policy Guidelines of 2014 (‘2014 guidelines’) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs excluding divorced daughters, which she contested as an unfair and irrational distinction given her impoverished condition and dependence on her parents, a Single Judge Bench of V. Lakshminarayanan, J., while allowing the petition held that petitioner was entitled to freedom fighter pension from the date of her application. The Court emphasised that the petitioner’s father and mother were freedom fighters and it was not in dispute that the petitioner was in impoverished circumstances. [Thillai Lokanathan v. Ministry of Home Affairs, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9882] Read More HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Madras HC affirms right to family pension for mentally disabled children of Government servants, no income certificate required

In a writ appeal filed seeking to expunge strong remarks made by a Single Judge Bench against the Principal Accountant General, while allowing a writ petition directing the disbursal of family pension to the mentally disabled child (respondent) of a Government servant, the Division Bench of G.R. Swaminathan* and K. Rajasekar, JJ. ordered that the remarks made against the appellant be expunged from the record. The Court further stated that child of a pensioner who is mentally disabled and falls within the scope of the pension rules is entitled to receive family pension, provided it is established that they are incapable of earning a livelihood. The Court made it clear that no insistence can be made for a certificate showing income from all sources, as it is not required by law. [Principal Accountant General (A&E) v. A.V. Jerald, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3182] Read More HERE

HOLDING OFFICE AFTER EXPIRY OF TENURE

MANIPUR HIGH COURT | ‘Creates confusion, absurdity and anomaly’; Manipur High Court quashes law allowing Panchayat members to continue in office beyond 5 years

In the petitions challenging the legality of Section 22(3) of Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 (‘Amendment Act’) which allowed the members of Panchayat to continue to hold office even after expiry of the 5-year tenure, the Division Bench of Kempaiah Somashekar, CJ and A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., while allowing the petitions, held that the amendment in the Section 22(3) of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (MPR Act) was ultra vires and violative of Article 243-E of the Constitution. The Court stated that amendment in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act, replacing the word ‘cease’ by ‘continue’ is illogical and is without any fruitful purpose, except for creating two bodies vying for the same power and function. [Mayanglambam Joykumar Singh v. State of Manipur, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 439] Read More HERE

JUDICIAL SERVICE

SUPREME COURT | SC issues major clarification on 3-year legal practice requirement for Judicial Officers appointed prior to its 20th May judgment

While considering an application seeking that the applicant be exempted from the directions passed by the Court in paragraph 89 (ii), (vii) and (viii) in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184 dated 20-5-2025, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., and K. Vinod Chandran, J., in order to remove any ambiguity, clarified that in case of Judicial Officers (JOs), who are appointed prior to the passing of the judgment dated 20-05-2025, the requirement of three years practice at the Bar would not be necessary, in case they apply for Judicial Services in any other State. This, however, will be subject to such JOs completing three years’ service in their present State. [All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2574] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court restores minimum three-year legal practice requirement for eligibility in civil judge exams

Mandatory 3 Years’ Practice Requirement: All candidates applying for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced law for a minimum of 3 years. Proof must be submitted through: A certificate by the Principal Judicial Officer, or A certificate by an advocate with at least 10 years’ standing, duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer. For those practicing before High Courts or the Supreme Court, certification must come from a 10-year advocate endorsed by an officer designated by that High Court or this Court. Law Clerk experience shall also count toward the 3-year practice requirement. All selected candidates must undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court. Practice Period to be Counted from Provisional Enrolment: The required years of legal practice shall be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment/registration with the respective State Bar Council. [All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Chhattisgarh Civil Judge Exam | Supreme Court directs State PSC to relax ‘3-Year Experience at the Bar’ rule for candidates

While considering this special leave petition revolving around Chhattisgarh Civil Judge Examination, the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CPSC) to not insist upon the requirement of three years’ experience at the Bar for the candidates as the advertisement was issued and the selection process had commenced prior to the judgment of the Court in All Indian Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 1184. [Urwashi Kour v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2033] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Annual 4-point roster to determine seniority in HJS; This & other Supreme Court Directions impacting statewide HJS cadres

While considering this matter seeking to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of statewide Higher Judicial Services (HJS), the 5-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., stated that the Court intends to lay down general and mandatory guidelines which shall, henceforth, be incorporated into the respective statutory service rules governing the determination of inter se seniority among officers appointed from different sources to the Higher Judicial Services. [All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2500] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Judicial Officers with 7 years’ experience in law practice are eligible for direct appointment as District Judge/Additional District Judge: Supreme Court

In a landmark ruling, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai, CJI.*, M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S.C. Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., while deciding a reference on issues related to appointment of Judicial Officers as District Judges, held the following: Judicial Officers who have already completed 7 years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service, would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process. [Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196] Read More HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Not in excess of permissible 25% quota’; Bombay HC dismisses plea challenging Nomination in recruitment process of District Judges

In the present case, petitioner-Maharashtra State Judges Association, an Association comprising members of judicial service in the State of Maharashtra, sought to raise a challenge to the recruitment process of District Judges through Nomination and challenged the advertisement dated 30-09-2023 regarding the selection process for the year 2022 and the advertisement dated 09-01-2024 regarding selection process for the year 2023. The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., dismissed the petition and held that the attempt to fill in the 25% posts through Nomination was not in excess of 25% quota, that is, what was permissible under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 (‘the 2008 Rules’). [Maharashtra State Judges Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 109] Read More HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Criteria of securing minimum 50% marks in Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Service examination not arbitrary: Punjab and Haryana High Court

A petition was filed by the petitioner challenging Clause 8.4 of the notifications issued for the States of Haryana and Punjab for direct recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judge imposing ‘minimum marks qualification’ of 50 per cent marks in aggregate for being in contravention of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (‘Haryana Rules’) and Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (‘Punjab Rules’). The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., and Sanjiv Berry*, J., held that the said notifications were not at all arbitrary in nature but were in consonance with the respective Service Rules to choose the best available talent for performance of the duties as a Member of Superior Judicial Service. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition. [Rushil Jindal v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 9113] Read More HERE

LABOUR LAW

SUPREME COURT | Aggrieved Woman’s Workplace ICC can Investigate Respondents from Other Departments: Supreme Court’s Landmark POSH Act Ruling Explained

In a significant ruling, the bench of JK Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ has held that an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted at the workplace of an aggrieved woman can conduct a preliminary inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), even if the ‘respondent’ is employed in a different government department. [Sohail Malik v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2751] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court upholds Kerala HC Verdict: Political Parties are not workplace and not liable to constitute Internal Complaints Committee under POSH Act

n a special leave petition filed against the Judgment of Kerala High Court, wherein it was held that it was not compulsory for political parties to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) to address sexual harassment complaints as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, (‘POSH Act’), since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members, the three Judge Bench of BR Gavai, CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. refused to entertain a petition seeking to bring registered political parties under the ambit of the POSH Act. [Yogamaya v State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2011] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | There can be a departure from the Schedule of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 in deciding functional disability: Supreme Court

In a Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant against the reduction of the disability as per the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the division bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ., while allowing the appeal, relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Mohd. Nasir, (2009) 6 SCC 280 wherein the Court had pointed out that Motor Vehicles Act created a legal fiction insofar as permitting reference to Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and held that it is not as if there can never be a departure from the Schedule in deciding the functional disability, which it has been recognised would in certain cases have a corelation with the physical disability. [Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 978] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court rules washing, cleaning, and dry-cleaning as ‘Manufacturing Process’ under Factories Act, 1948

In an appeal concerning the question that whether the process of ‘Dry cleaning of clothes’ constitutes ‘manufacturing process’ as defined under the Factories Act, 1948 (‘Act of 1948’), the division bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. held that washing, cleaning, and dry-cleaning activities fall within the definition of ‘manufacturing process’ under the Factories Act, 1948, even if these processes do not result in the creation of a new tangible product. The Court further clarified that the laundry business qualifies as a ‘factory’ under Section 2(m) of the Act, 1948, provided that it employs 10 or more workers, and the laundry work is carried out with the aid of power-operated machines. [State of Goa v. Namita Tripathi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 480] Read More HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | No employer can impose restriction on freedom of Trade Union members to contest elections or continue as Office Bearers: Bombay HC

The petition was filed praying that this Court be pleased to hold and declare that the Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 (‘the 1964 Rules’) was not applicable to the associations or trade unions whose membership was restricted to the employees working in the Department of Atomic Energy or in any Ministry or Department of the Government of India and there was no requirement for seeking prior permission of the employer to become office bearers of such association/trade union/federation. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., opined that no employer could create such service rules which would create an embargo on the terms and conditions or the clauses of the Constitution of a Trade Union. [National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1360] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Medical Representative not a workman’: Delhi HC upholds Labour Court order

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 5-9-2018 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Labour Court had held that the petitioner, a medical representative, could not categorized as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J, upheld the impugned order stating that a medical representative would not fall under the definition of a ‘skilled’ worker and would therefore not be covered under the ID Act. Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition. [Samarendra Das v. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6347] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Is Working “for” an organisation same as working “in” it as an employee? Delhi High Court rules

A petition was filed challenging order dated 12-11-2024 whereby she has been terminated from service and is seeking issuance of appropriate writ directing her employer to reinstate her to the post of Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)-Legal, with all consequential benefits. Manoj Jain, J., quashed the termination order dated 12-11-2024 and held that since the petitioner continues in service, she shall be deemed to have uninterrupted service with all consequential benefits. [XX v. UOI, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5699] Read More HERE

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘MNREGA worker not workmen/employee under Workmen Compensation Act’; Himachal Pradesh HC denies compensation to deceased MNREGA worker’s heirs

In an appeal filed by the legal heirs of a Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (‘MNREGA) worker against dismissal of their claim under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (‘WC Act’) for compensation since the deceased passed away in the course of employment, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Singh Thakur, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that MNREGA workers are not workmen/ employee under the WC Act and thus, had no right to claim compensation under the WC Act. [Geeta Devi v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, 2025 SCC OnLine HP 1443] Read More HERE

JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Charitable trust engaged in systemic and commercial activities is an ‘industry’ under ID Act: J&K and Ladakh HC

The matter concerned whether a charitable trust, engaged in multifarious activities including commercial ventures, could be classified as an ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’), arising from the termination of a worker which the Industrial Tribunal had quashed as illegal while awarding 50 percent back wages. A Single Judge Bench of M.A. Chowdhary, J., while dismissing the petition challenging the Tribunal’s award, upheld that the Trust’s activities were systemic, organised, and commercial in nature thereby falling within the definition of ‘industry’. [Dharmarth Trust J&K v. Industrial Tribunal, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1266] Read More HERE

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Workman appearing through advocate constitutes deemed consent for employer’s legal representation: Jharkhand High Court

In the petition filed by Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., challenging the impugned order that upheld the workman’s application under Section 36(3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’) and barred the Management’s advocate from appearing in the reference proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of Deepak Roshan, J., held that when a workman appears through advocate, it is treated as deemed consent for employer’s legal representation. Reiterating the well settled law, the Court observed that consent may be either express or implied, and leave can be granted directly by the Labour Court or inferred when the Court permits an advocate to appear and entertains applications filed by such advocate. [Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Jay Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3607] Read More HERE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Finding under S. 33(2)(b) ID Act on fairness of domestic enquiry operates as res judicata in Labour Court proceedings: Karnataka HC

In a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash and set aside the order passed by 1st Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (‘Labour Court’), a Single Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. while dismissing the petition remitted the matter to Labour Court to consider the challenge to the merits of the finding of the disciplinary enquiry as well as the penalty imposed. The Court stated that if, after recording evidence, the authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Authority’) concludes that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, the finding would be binding on the parties and it cannot be re-agitated in any subsequent industrial dispute, as it operates as res judicata. [Fouress Engineering Karmika Sangha v. Management of Fouress Engg (I) (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 10079] Read More HERE

MATERNITY BENEFIT

SUPREME COURT | Objectives of population control & providing maternity leave to working women not mutually exclusive & must be rationally harmonised: SC

While considering the instant matter wherein the appellant who was denied maternity leave for a third child on account of her re-marriage, challenged the said rejection; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ., held that the appellant was entitled to maternity leave. The Court explained that the appellant has two biological children out of her first wedlock; however, that was before entry into her service. Post her entry into service and from her subsisting marriage, this is her first child. Furthermore, the Court took note of the record that the two children out of her first wedlock were not residing with her but with their father, who had their custody. [K. Umadevi v. State of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204] Read More HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Temporary employment or technical break in Service not ground to deny maternity benefits: Bombay HC

In a case revolving around whether a woman employed on a temporary basis, with technical breaks in service, could be denied maternity leave benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (‘MB Act’), the Division Bench of Ajit B. Kadethankar and M.S. Karnik*, JJ., held that such denial was arbitrary and unjust, recognizing that the MB Act extended the protection even to women working on daily wages or temporary posts. The Court, while allowing the petition, directed that maternity benefits be granted and that failure to disburse the amount within four weeks would attract interest at 9% per annum. [Vrushali Vasant Yadav (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5216] Read More HERE

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. [Archana Sharma v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 3477] Read more HERE

ORISSA HIGH COURT | Denying maternity benefit to contractual employee is abhorrent to humanity and womanhood: Orissa HC

The present writ appeal was filed by the State challenging a Single Judge’s order, wherein it had directed the grant of maternity leave to a woman engaged on a contractual basis under the Health and Family Welfare Department. The Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and M.S. Sahoo, JJ., held that denying maternity benefit based on nature of employment was abhorrent to the notions of humanity and womanhood and further observed that the concept of maternity leave was structured on the principle of “zero separation” between a lactating mother and her breastfeeding baby. [State of Orissa v. Anindita Mishra, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2606] Read More HERE

PAY MINUS PENSION RULE

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court stays ‘pay minus pension’ rule for ex-defence faculty recruited by AIIMS Jodhpur

In a Special Leave Petition filed by retired defence officers who had been appointed to faculty posts at AIIMS Jodhpur through open advertisement and direct recruitment, the petitioners challenged a judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had held that, although the petitioners were appointed through direct recruitment, they would be governed by Regulation 33 of the AIIMS Regulations, 1999. While the High Court restrained retrospective salary deductions, it allowed the prospective application of the “Pay minus Pension” formula from the date of its judgment, i.e., 15-05-2025. In response, a Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. issued notice and granted interim relief to the recruited faculty members, staying the implementation of the “Pay minus Pension” rule pending further consideration. [Dr. Arjun Singh Sandhu v. All India Institute of Medical Science, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1468] Read More HERE

PENSION

SUPREME COURT | ‘Illness is presumed to be service related if no disease is recorded by medical board at time of entry’; Supreme Court orders 50% disability pension for ex-serviceman

In an appeal filed by a former army personnel against the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal held that the appellant’s disability was less than 20%, and consequently, no relief was granted, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ. highlighted that, the law had crystallized to the effect that if no mention was made by the Medical Board at the time of entry into service regarding the presence of a particular disease, the presumption was that the member contracted the disease due to military service. Consequently, the burden of proving that the disease was not attributable to or aggravated by military service rested entirely on the employer. Furthermore, any disease or disability that led to invaliding out of service was to be presumed to be above 20%, and as per the Court’s findings, it should have attracted the grant of a 50% disability pension. [Bijender Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 895] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court upholds ‘One Rank One Pension’ for all retired High Court Judges; Orders equal and full pension

In a matter concerning the pension payable to retired Judges of the High Courts, including the payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits, a Three- Judge Bench of BR Gavai*, CJI., Augustine George Masih, and K.Vinod Chandran, JJ. issued the following directions: The Union of India was directed to pay the full pension of Rs. 15,00,000/- per annum to a retired Chief Justice of the High Court. The Union of India was directed to pay the full pension of Rs. 13,50,000/- per annum to a retired Judge of the High Court, other than a retired Chief Justice of the High Court. [High Court Judges Pension Refixation Considering Service Period in District Judiciary & High Court, In re, (2025) 7 SCC 674] Read More HERE

GAUHATI HIGH COURT | ‘Arbitrary and discriminatory’; Gauhati HC upholds pensionary benefits to 2006-2009 retirees, previously denied over financial stringency

The present appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 28-4-2016, passed by a Single Judge, whereby it was stated that persons retiring between 1-1-2006 and 31-3-2009 could not have been denied the benefit of the Assam Pay Commission recommendation of higher salary, only on the grounds of financial stringency. The Division Bench of Ashutosh Kumar, CJ., and Arun Dev Choudhury, J.*, stated that the classification sought to be made by the petitioners had no nexus with the object and purpose of the grant of the benefit of revised pension, as such revision was due to increase in cost of living. The Court stated that when all the pensioners formed a single class, there could not be any separate classification amongst this homogenous group. [State of Assam v. All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers and Employees Committee, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4051] Read More HERE

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Himachal Pradesh HC grants pensionary benefits to daily wage worker with less than 10 years of service

In a writ petition filed by a daily wage worker seeking pensionary benefits for the service rendered by him, a Single Judge Bench of Satyen Vaidya, J., allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner had rendered more than 8 years but less than 10 years of service thus, his service was to be treated as 10 years, which qualified him for pensionary benefits. [Bhima Ram v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 808] Read More HERE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Media Academy & Temperance Board employees not entitled to Pension under Karnataka Civil Services Rules: Karnataka High Court

In bunch of appeals and review petition challenging single-judge bench order dated 10-01-2022, granting pensionary benefits to employees of the Media Academy and Temperance Board under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (‘KCSRs’), and directions in contempt proceedings for implementing those orders, a Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman* and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ., set aside the order and held that the employees of the Media Academy or the Temperance Board are not Government servants and hence, not eligible to pension under KCSRs. [State of Karnataka v. Yallagaiah G., 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 21766] Read More HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | State Freedom Fighter pension doesn’t automatically guarantee Central Freedom Fighters’ Samman Pension; Document-based proof mandatory: Madras High Court

In a case deciding whether grant of State Government Freedom Fighters Pension would automatically extend to Central Government Freedom Fighters Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (‘SSS Scheme’), the Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and C. Kumarappan, JJ., held that the eligibility conditions stipulated under the SSS Scheme must be scrupulously followed. The Court clarified that mere receipt of State pension does not ipso facto entitle a person to Samman Pension under the Central SSS Scheme and accordingly set aside the writ order dated 28-10-2020 while allowing the writ appeal. [Union of India v. S. Somasundaram, WA No. 806 of 2022] Read More HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Deplorable approach adopted by Union towards its own army personnel’; Punjab and Haryana HC rejects pleas against rounding off disability element of disability pension

In a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union against the Armed Forces Tribunal (‘AFT’) that rounded off the disability element of the disability pension of respondents to 50 percent, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and H.S. Grewal, JJ., rejected the petitions, holding that the binding precedents by the Supreme Court did not restrict the payment of arrears for only three years before the filing of the application. The Court deplored the Union’s approach towards its own former servicemen, non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s decisions, and undertaking unnecessary litigation. [Union of India v. Ex Sep Swaran Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2604] Read More HERE

PROMOTION

SUPREME COURT | Can promotion be denied based on adverse confidential reports which were never conveyed to the employee, depriving of opportunity to representation? SC answers

In a civil special leave petition by a former Commandant with the Border Security Force (BSF) who was denied promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) from the date his juniors were promoted, the three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. allowed the appeals, directing the respondents to consider his case afresh. The Court held that the appellant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including further consideration for promotion to a higher rank in accordance with the rules and regulations/criteria prescribed by the competent authority within three months. [R.S. Kadian v. Ajay Kumar Bhalla, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 984] Read More HERE

GAUHATI HIGH COURT | ‘In merit-cum-seniority there is greater emphasis on merit’; Gauhati High Court holds promotional exercise of New India Assurance Ltd. Valid

In a civil writ petition challenging the notice dated 16-01-2024 of the Promotion Exercise 2024-25 to the cadre of Scale VII issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (‘NIAC’) on the ground of it being illegal and violative of the Promotion Policy 2006, the Single Judge Bench of Kardak Ete, J*., finding no procedural infirmity or illegality in the promotion exercise dismissed the petition holding that the principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role and is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal. [Lathrang Born Buam v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2945] Read more HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Law must bend toward inclusion of specially-abled citizen’: Punjab and Haryana HC directs retrospective promotions of visually impaired Forest Department employee

In a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of order passed by Respondent 1 whereby the claim of the petitioner, a visually impaired employee of the Forest Department, was dismissed without due consideration of State Government’s issued relaxation regarding promotional eligibility, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil, J., held that the law must bend toward inclusion, and the specially-abled citizen should not be left standing outside the doors of opportunity to which the Constitution has already given a key. Accordingly, the Court set aside the order and stated that the petitioner was entitled to promotion against the 3 per cent reservation quota for physically handicapped, and should be accorded notional promotion to the post of Forest Guard from 2003 and Forester from 2013. [Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 15411] Read More HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Exemption from Efficiency Test for promotion is a one-time exception, not a matter of Right: Rajasthan HC

In a writ petition filed by Junior Personal Assistants (JPAs) employed under the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur challenging the requirement to pass an Efficiency Test for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer, a Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar* and Kuldeep Mathur, JJ., allowed the petition to the extent that the 2020 batch is barred from competing for pre-2020 vacancies and the Efficiency Test results shall be published, and promotions must to be granted as per the prescribed method. The Court further held that government employees have no inherent right to promotion, but only the right to be considered under existing rules. [Twinkle Singh v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 471] Read more HERE

RE-EMPLOYED RETIRED EMPLOYEES

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court overturns Sikkim High Court ruling on leave encashment for re-employed retired government employees beyond 300 days under Sikkim Leave Rules

In an appeal filed by the State of Sikkim against the order passed by the Sikkim High Court, wherein the Court held that the respondent was entitled to leave encashment for unutilized leave accrued during the period of re-employment, the division bench of JK Maheshwari* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. concluded that, under Rule 36 of the Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982 (‘Leave Rules’), a regular government servant who retires under the Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974 (‘Service Rules’) was entitled to leave encashment only up to a maximum of 300 days. Consequently, the orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench were set aside, and both appeals were allowed. [State of Sikkim v. Mool Raj Kotwal, (2025) 10 SCC 584] Read More HERE

REGULARIZATION

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. [Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT | Can past contractual service count towards pension once an employee is regularised? Supreme Court answers

In an appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court, wherein it was held that the appellants, who were initially appointed on contractual basis and subsequently regularised, will not be entitled to seniority, service benefits, and pension for the period of their contractual service, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. highlighted that upon regularisation, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (‘Pension Rules’) would apply, and Rule 17 mandates that the past service as a contractual employee be taken into account when calculating pension. Hence, upon consideration of the Pension Rules and the decision in State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272, the Court partly allowed the present appeals and directed Union of India to grant pensionary benefit to the appellants in accordance with law. [S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973] Read More HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Calling daily wage workers’ service as ‘casual’ is morally unjust’: Punjab and Haryana High Court allows plea for regularization

The present petition was filed by daily wage workers (‘petitioners’) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside order passed by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (‘respondent’) whereby their claim seeking regularization was rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil, J., held that fairness demanded that those who had given a lifetime to public service should not be left stranded in their twilight years with nothing but hope and equity should not be a casualty in the hands of executive convenience. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition. [Harbhajan Singh v. Bhakra Beas Management Board, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 9123] Read More HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Punjab and Haryana HC flags non-regularisation of ad-hoc workers, administrative delays; Lays down parameters for timely implementation of court decisions

In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order passed by the respondent through which claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., ordered the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners within six weeks and laid down the parameters to ensure timely and effective implementation of the decisions of the Courts. [Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7746] Read More HERE

REINSTATEMENT

SUPREME COURT | ‘Non-disclosure of past government service can’t be a ground for discharge’: Supreme Court reinstates woman Civil Judge

While deliberating over instant appeal whereby Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by the appellant challenging her discharge from Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS); the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ., set aside the order of discharge and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant. The Court opined that non-disclosure of past government service, cannot be a ground to discharge the appellant. While deciding the matter, the Court emphasised on the necessity of women’s participation in the judiciary and said that country will greatly benefit from a judicial force that is competent, committed and most importantly, diverse. The Court also commended the appellant for her perseverance by fighting societal stigmas and gaining a rich education that will ultimately benefit the judicial system and the democratic project. [Pinky Meena v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1214] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi HC directs State to reinstate CISF candidate acquitted of criminal charges

A petition was filed by the petitioner being a candidate aspiring to join Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) challenging the withdrawal notice of the petitioner’s Offer of Appointment stating that he was “unsuitable for employment in CISF” despite the petitioner having informed the respondents that vide the Judgment dated 10-08-2023, he was acquitted in the aforementioned case as the prosecution had completely failed to prove the charges against him. A Division Bench of Navil Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., set aside the impugned notice dated 30-11-2024 and directed the respondents to re-instate the petitioner to the post of Constable (GD), the post he was selected for, and allow him to complete his training with the next batch, if the training of the current batch has already been completed. [Ranjan Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9544] Read More HERE

ORISSA HIGH COURT | “Employment — a means of livelihood and a tool of dignity”: Orissa High Court reinstates Sanskrit Lecturer ‘prevented’ from service without hearing 2 decades ago

While hearing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner, a Lecturer in Sanskrit Vyakarana appointed on 15-04-1998, challenged the Director’s order dated 28-07-2023 favouring Respondent 5’s appointment despite her earlier appeal having been allowed, a Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., held that employment is both a means of livelihood and a tool of dignity, and depriving a duly appointed employee of her job without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing is grossly violative of the principles of natural justice. Clarifying further, the Court observed that while respondent may be accommodated elsewhere, her appointment cannot override the petitioner’s right to reinstatement. [Tapaswini Pattnaik v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3996] Read More HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Punjab and Haryana HC orders reinstatement of a Judge dispensed with service after complaint by his former wife

In a civil writ petition filed by a Judge seeking to quash his dismissal from Haryana Civil Services (‘HCS’) (Judicial Branch) and withdrawal of judicial work from him, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., and Anil Kshetarpal*, J., allowed the petition holding that the petitioner was deprived of the fair opportunity to defend himself and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages, and seniority. [Peeyush Gakhar v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 248] Read More HERE

RESERVATION

SUPREME COURT | Reserved candidates cannot be permitted to migrate to general category seats if relevant recruitment rules impose an embargo: SC

While considering the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgments whereby the respondents who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ., held that where there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats. [Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943] Read More HERE

SUPREME COURT | ‘Eligibility criteria declared by fresh advertisement cannot be changed midway through recruitment process’; Supreme Court upholds reservation of DSP post for SC Sports (Women)

In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning the reservation of posts in the State of Punjab’s government services, including provisions for women’s reservation, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. emphasized that no alterations could be made to the recruitment process once the advertisement was issued and deemed it unnecessary to examine the legality of the subsequent roster system for the purpose of the case. Since neither the advertisement nor the Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’) providing 33% horizontal reservation for women were challenged, the reservation stood valid. [Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 761] Read More HERE

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Chhattisgarh HC seeks State response on alleged 100% domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Admissions

In a writ petition filed by a doctor challenging Rule 11 (a) and part of Rule 11 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021 (‘the P.G. Admission Rules’), as unconstitutional for allegedly providing 100 per cent domicile-based reservation, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., sought State’s response within two weeks. [Dr. Samriddhi Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 9021] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi High Court flags lack of policy decision on providing reservation to transgender persons in public employment

While hearing a petition regarding recruitment to various posts in the Establishment of Delhi High Court which raised issues pertaining to non-compliance of National Legal Services Authority v. UOI 2014 (5) SCC 438 (‘NALSA case’) on part of the Central and State Governments in taking steps to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in order to extend all kinds of reservation not only in admissions to educational institutions but also for public appointments, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., directed to register the same as a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) and expressed concern that steps ensuring welfare of transgender persons were yet to be taken by providing them reservations in employment. [Praveen Singh v. High Court of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6478] Read More HERE

KERALA HIGH COURT | No retrospective reservation benefit if community added to backward list after application deadline: Kerala High Court

In a matter concerning the issue of whether a candidate who had applied under the General Category could later claim the benefit of reservation, if their community was included in the backward community list after the last date for submitting the application, the Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque* and Johnson John, JJ., held that a candidate who had applied for a government post under the General Category could not later claim the benefit of reservation if their community was included in the reserved category after the last date of application, as eligibility must be determined based on the status at the time of notification. [Sini KV v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4575] Read More HERE

ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Merit alone counts at Super Speciality level’: Orissa High Court dismisses plea for reservation in Assistant Professor posts

While deciding writ petitions filed by reserved category candidates challenging recruitment to Assistant Professor (Super Speciality) posts under the Odisha Medical Education Service (‘OMES’) Cadre, a Single Judge Bench of Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., held that no illegality was committed in issuing the advertisement without reservation. The Court clarified that although Rule 6 read with Rule 3(a) of the Odisha Medical Education Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2021 (‘2021 Rules’) and Section 3 of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies Act, 1975 (‘1975 Act’) mandate reservation for base level posts, such benefit does not extend to super speciality disciplines unless specifically provided by the State. Observing that merit must prevail at this level, the Court found the petitions unsustainable and dismissed them. [Nihar Ranjan Biswal v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4295] Read More HERE

RESIGNATION

SUPREME COURT | Explained | Why SC upheld validity of restrictive covenant with indemnity clause of Rs 2 Lakhs in case of premature resignation from Vijaya Bank’s service

While considering the instant appeal revolving around the validity of a restrictive covenant in the appointment letter issued by Vijaya Bank, whereby an indemnity bond of Rs 2 Lakh was required to be furnished in case respondent resigns prematurely; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ., upheld the validity of the restrictive clause stating that it does not amount to restraint of trade nor is it opposed to public policy. The Court opined that Vijaya Bank is a public sector undertaking and cannot resort to private or ad-hoc appointments through private contracts. An untimely resignation would require the Bank to undertake a prolix and expensive recruitment process involving open advertisement, fair competitive procedure lest the appointment falls foul of the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B Narnaware, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1107] Read More HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Sarpanch resigning under Section 29 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 entitled to withdraw the same during its verification in Panchayat meeting: Bombay HC

In the present case, the petitioner challenged order dated 07-06-2024 passed by the Collector, Raigad for declaring that a vacancy had occurred on the post of Sarpanch of village Ainghar, Roha, Raigad, and appointing returning officer to conduct elections for vacant post of Sarpanch. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., opined that the resignation could be withdrawn when the agenda for verification of resignation was taken up for discussion in the meeting of the Panchayat and held that the petitioner’s resignation did not take effect on account of its withdrawal by her during the meeting held on 15-03-2024 and the Collector had erroneously arrived at a conclusion that post of the Sarpanch had fallen vacant without appreciating the position that resignation was already withdrawn. Thus, the Collector’s order dated 07-06-2024 about the post of Sarpanch becoming vacant was illegal and liable to be set aside. [Kalavati Rajendra Kokale v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 181] Read More HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay HC grants pension to former MOIL employee who was denied benefit despite being eligible as he had resigned, not superannuated

In a writ petition filed by a former employee of Manganese Ore (India) Limited (‘MOIL’) challenging the validity of Rule 7 (b) of the MOIL Group Superannuation Cash Accumulation Scheme (Defined Contribution) Rules (‘the Scheme’) whereby he was denied his pension because he had resigned and not superannuated, the Division Bench of Avinash G. Gharote* and Abhay J. Mantri, JJ., held that rule 7(b) was discriminatory and allowed the petition by further holding that he was entitled to the benefits of the said Scheme. [Chandrabhan v. MOIL Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3879] Read More HERE

RETIREMENT

GAUHATI HIGH COURT | ‘State Information Commissioner entitled to Chief Secretary-Level post-retirement benefits’; 10-year qualifying service not mandatory under S. 16(5) RTI Act: Gauhati HC

In an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of the Single Judge, whereby the respondent was held to be entitled to additional pension, additional Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (‘DCRG’), Telephone and Security Assistant along with the benefits and allowances under Section 16 (5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) with effect from 1-1-2020, a division bench of Ashutosh Kumar CJ*. and Arun Dev Choudhary J., stated that the respondent being a member of Union Civil Service would be governed by the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 which states that in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules, he would be entitled to pension as provided under the said Rule. [State of Assam v. Pinuel Basumatary, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4050] Read More HERE

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Withdrawal of premature retirement allowed before effective date’; Himachal Pradesh HC reinstates Government Degree College’s Principal under CCS Rules

In a writ petition filed by the Principal of Government Degree College, Solan, against the impugned order wherein her request for withdrawal of premature retirement was rejected, a Single Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J.*, allowed the petition, reiterating that the appointing authority had no discretion to refuse withdrawal if the request was made before lapse of the notice period and before the retirement had taken effect. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin the service from the date she had tendered the request for withdrawal of resignation. [Indira Daroch v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine HP 1818] Read More HERE

SALARY AND PAY

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court upholds Gauhati HC order directing Nagaland to ensure salary parity for RMSA teachers

In a matter concerning pay parity for teachers employed under the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (‘RMSA’), the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and K. Vinod Chandra, JJ. declined to interfere with a judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court, wherein the Court directed the Nagaland State Government to pay salaries to a batch of teachers employed under RMSA in parity with their counterparts. [State of Nagaland v. Amos Seb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1223] 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. [Shah Samir Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1788] Read more HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Higher post in officiating capacity gives entitlement to higher salary: Allahabad High Court

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order whereby the petitioner’s application, seeking directions for respondent to pay him the salary admissible for the post of Head Master (Junior Wing) along with arrears for the period he had worked upon superannuation of the person posted, was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’). The Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ., and Kshitij Shailendra, J., held that the Tribunal did not thoroughly examine the record of proceedings and dismissed the said application on the ground that no provision was shown indicating entitlement of the petitioner to get a salary for Head Master. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period concerned after adjusting the salary he had already received as TGT. [Uma Kant Pandey v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7798] Read More HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi HC quashes order directing private schools to implement 6th & 7th Pay Commission for teachers; says judicial powers can’t be delegated to committees

A batch of letters patent appeals were filed challenging the judgment dated 17-11-2023, passed by the Single Judge, by the teachers and employees of various recognised private unaided schools in Delhi claiming for payment of salary as per the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) which is being paid to schools run by the appropriate authorities along with certain ancillary prayers such as promotion and payment of retirement benefits as per 6th and 7thCPC. A Division Bench of Subramonium Prasad, and Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ., set aside a common judgment of a Single Judge which had directed the constitution of government-led committees to determine teachers’ pay arrears, fee revisions and implementation of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions (CPCs). [Renu Arora v. St. Margaret Senior Secondary School, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7137] Read More HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Non-payment of salary to employee amounts to Begar under Article 23 & is impermissible: Rajasthan HC

In a writ petition by an employee under the State of Rajasthan, who is denied salary since 2016, despite actively rendering services, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that withholding salary amounts to exploitation and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23 of Constitution of India. The Court ordered the respondents to pay the salary promptly, failing which strict action, including contempt proceedings, would follow. [Sunil Dattatrey v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 361] Read more HERE

TERMINATION

DELHI HIGH COURT | Delhi HC upholds constitutional validity of 2013 guidelines disqualifying colour-blind personnel in Central Armed Forces

While hearing three writ petitions filed by petitioners who had been terminated from the post of constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’) on grounds of being colour-blind, the Division Bench of *Subramonium Prasad, J., and Vimal Kumar Yadav, J., held that the termination order was valid. The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of the New Policy Guidelines on recruitment/retention in respect of Central Armed Forces (‘CAPFs’) and Assam Rifles (‘AR’) personnel having defective vision including colour blindness dated 27-2-2013 (‘2013 guidelines’) stating that the objective of the guidelines is to prevent the risk of injury at the hands of personnel who have defective vision or cannot distinguish between colours of the uniform. [Anjar Ali Khan v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9054] Read More HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Sympathy cannot substitute law’; Punjab & Haryana HC dismisses Constable’s plea who was wrongly appointed under Freedom Fighter quota for 9 years

In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside show cause notice, that required him to explain why he should not be terminated from service for submitting a Freedom Fighter Certificate issued in his father’s favour , a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., held that the Freedom Fighter Certificate enclosed by the petitioner during recruitment was issued to his father. As per the terms and conditions, the benefit was available up to the grandson of a Freedom Fighter, and the petitioner being the great grandson, didn’t fall into the said category. Thus, the Court stated that it could not legalize such irregular or illegal acts. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and stated that it was not oblivious of the fact that dismissal of petitioner would cause hardship to him and his family, but sympathy or compassion could not substitute law. [Chandandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 14994] Read More HERE

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. [Arshad v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4800] Read more HERE

TRANSFER

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Every govt. employee, during their life career, must be given sub-cadre, hard or tribal area posting: Himachal Pradesh HC

In the present petition, the petitioner stated that she was transferred from Dhalog, Chamba, to Devikothi, Chamba, which was a hard area, and she had already served in a sub-cadre area and prayed for a posting near Nagali where her husband was working. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J., directed the State to ensure that transfers were made strictly in accordance with the transfer policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh and emphasised that every government employee should be posted to a difficult area once during their service and that political influence should not be allowed in the matter. [Bharti Ratore v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 2397] Read More HERE

ORISSA HIGH COURT | Teachers’ transfers cannot be politicised; Orissa High Court quashes Government directive allowing MPs/MLAs to influence posting decisions

While deciding a batch of petitions filed by government school teachers challenging their transfer orders and a government letter dated 13-05-2025, wherein it was contended that the transfers violated statutory Transfer Guidelines and were influenced by political recommendations of MPs and MLAs, a Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., held that the impugned transfer orders as well as the letter authorising such recommendations were unsustainable in law. The Court quashed both the transfer orders and the letter, directed that the teachers be continued in their original places of posting until the end of the academic year and thereafter restored, and further mandated that all departmental appeals be disposed of within four weeks. [Ranjan Kumar Tripathy v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4166] Read More HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Transfer order with assignment to teach unqualified subject is ‘malice in law’ and violates Article 21-A: Rajasthan High Court

In an appeal challenging the Single-judge’s order which affirmed the transfer order posting the appellant to teach English as valid when she is not qualified to teach that subject under applicable rules, a Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Sandeep Shah*, JJ., quashed the impugned order and held that administrative convenience cannot override qualifications prescribed by law. The Court further held that imposing such a transfer poses a risk of adverse consequences for the appellant and also violates students’ right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India by depriving them of a qualified teacher. [Gauri v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2537] Read More HERE

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

What is the date of enforcement of the new Labour Codes?

The Four Labour Codes will come into effect on 21-11-2025, marking a historic step in India’s labour governance.
Is an illness presumed to be service-related if no disease was recorded at the time of entry into military service?

Yes. If the Medical Board recorded no illness at the time of enrolment, the law presumes that any later-developed disease is attributable to or aggravated by military service, unless the employer conclusively proves otherwise.
Does ‘One Rank One Pension’ apply to all retired High Court Judges?

Yes. The Supreme Court has upheld uniform and equal pension for all retired High Court Judges, ensuring parity regardless of date of retirement.
In merit-cum-seniority promotions, which factor prevails?

Merit and ability take precedence, while seniority becomes relevant only when merit is approximately equal.
Can reserved category candidates migrate to general seats after availing relaxation?

Only if recruitment rules do not impose an explicit embargo on such migration.
Is non-payment of salary despite work performed a violation of fundamental rights?

Yes. Withholding wages amounts to forced labour and violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
Can transfers be influenced by political recommendations?

No. Politicised transfers violate service rules, administrative fairness, and constitutional principles.
Can eligibility criteria be altered after a recruitment advertisement is issued?

No. Changing eligibility mid-process is impermissible and unconstitutional.
Can the State deny pensionary benefits citing financial stringency?

No. Financial constraints cannot be used as a justification to deny pension or create discriminatory classifications among pensioners.

SCC Times

Labour and Service Law in 2025: Landmark Reforms and Defining Judgments

IMPLEMENTATION OF LABOUR CODES

SERVICE LAW

LABOUR LAW

APPOINTMENT, RECRUITMENT & SELECTION

CANCELLATION OF CANDIDATURE

Compassionate appointment

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

DISMISSAL, DISCHARGE AND REMOVAL

EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

EMPLOYMENT DUES TO LEGAL HEIRS

FAMILY PENSION

HOLDING OFFICE AFTER EXPIRY OF TENURE

JUDICIAL SERVICE

LABOUR LAW

MATERNITY BENEFIT

PAY MINUS PENSION RULE

PENSION

PROMOTION

RE-EMPLOYED RETIRED EMPLOYEES

REGULARIZATION

REINSTATEMENT

RESERVATION

RESIGNATION

RETIREMENT

SALARY AND PAY

TERMINATION

TRANSFER

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Related

Most Read

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply