AdministrativeLaw
Is Working “for” an organisation same as working “in” it as an employee? Delhi High Court rules
The petitioner, a law graduate, was appointed as Assistant Director (Legal) in BIS in 2021 after due scrutiny by a selection committee. In 2024, her services were terminated on the ground that her earlier experience as an advocate for a private university did not meet the prescribed eligibility of working in a government or autonomous body.
Turkish firm Celebi’s Security Clearance revoked: Delhi High Court upholds State action based on intelligence inputs under Aircraft Rules, 2023
Celebi Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., subsidiaries of Turkish firm Celebi Aviation Holding, provide ground and cargo handling services at major Indian airports, including IGI Airport, Delhi. Their security clearances were revoked by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) on 15-05-2025, based on classified intelligence inputs.
Inter Railway Request Transfer approved before policy change cannot be denied; CAT directs Railways to restore pre policy approved transfer
The Railway Board’s 2015 policy required five years of service for inter-railway transfers but applied only to fresh cases of post-issuance. Despite meeting this condition, the applicant was not relieved. Later, a 2022 policy raised the service requirement to ten years, leading SECR to cancel all pending transfers below that threshold, including the applicant’s.
Transfer Order of disabled employee to be treated as interim recommendation under Disabilities Act, 2016; Delhi High Court clarifies scope of CCPD’s powers
In a situation where rights available to persons with disabilities under the 2016 Act or the Rules 2017 or under any other measure involving the service-related issues are found to have been infringed or violated, the provisions of the 2016 Act will have to be given effect to.
[FEMA] Delhi High Court quashes ED’s NOC rejection for Times Internet Limited and Bennett Coleman overseas investments
The impugned communications do not disclose any substantive reason for rejecting the NOC. A rejection of such import, devoid of any rationale or justification, is arbitrary and falls afoul of the principles of natural justice.