Life cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum; SC holds where prior approval is the rule the defect cannot be cured by post-facto approval
“What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively.”
“What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively.”
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M. R. Shah*, JJ., held that equation of posts and salary
Supreme Court: The bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy*, JJ has held that if a regular promotion is offered but
Jharkhand High Court: Shree Chandrashekhar, J. held that a charged employee has no unfettered right to ask for any document on which
“Discrimination, which is not based on any reasonable classification, is violative of all canons of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
Supreme Court: The 3-Judges Bench comprising of D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., set aside the seniority list prepared by
“When a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted.”
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias C.P, JJ., directed the government of Kerala to consider
“To allot the plots to those employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation would tantamount to giving a premium to their illegality and remaining in occupation and possession of the quarters illegally and unauthorizedly.”
In 2011, the bench of RV Raveendran and Markandey Katju, JJ laid down principles relating to promotion and upgradation.
“The State has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies.”
“No one has questioned their appointments…more than 34 years have rolled by and much water has flown in the Ganges and persons have later promoted to their promotional posts and few of them have retired.”
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna*, JJ., condoned the non pensionable sandwiched period between pensionable services rendered
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) granted disability
“If a preliminary inquiry could be conducted, there may not be any reason as to why formal departmental inquiry could not have been initiated against the delinquent.”
Jharkhand High Court: S. N. Pathak, J., directed the State of Jharkhand to provide maternity benefits to a contractual employee whose demand
Patna High Court: Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J., set aside the order of dismissal of a constable who was removed from service in
Appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.
Supreme Court: In a case where a man, after being acquitted in a kidnapping case, had applied for the post of Constable
“Having tendered ‘resignation’, the respondent had to suffer the consequences and could not be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent wanted was ‘premature retirement’ and not ‘resignation’.”