{"id":346312,"date":"2025-04-23T11:00:24","date_gmt":"2025-04-23T05:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=346312"},"modified":"2025-04-23T11:09:56","modified_gmt":"2025-04-23T05:39:56","slug":"sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/","title":{"rendered":"Decision rendered by Apex Court, at SLP stage or post grant of leave cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32: Supreme Court affirms"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a petition filed by retired officers of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited (‘the Corporation’), challenging the denial of pensionary benefits under the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 (‘Scheme 1999’), a Three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan*<\/span>, JJ. held that the present writ petition filed under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> is entirely misconceived and devoid of merit. The Bench, after careful examination, stated that the issues raised had already been fully adjudicated in State of H.P.<\/span> v. Rajesh Chander Sood<\/span>, (2016) 10 SCC 77<\/a>, a binding precedent on the present petitioners. Reasserting the principle of finality in litigation, the Court reiterated that a decision rendered under Article 136 cannot be re-agitated through a writ petition under Article 32.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The Scheme 1999 was discontinued via a State notification dated 02-12-2004. The petitioners sought direction for payment of pension on par with similarly situated employees who had retired prior to the scheme’s withdrawal, urging that their pensionable service be counted from the date of joining until their superannuation.<\/p>\n

The issue of denial of pensionary benefits under the Scheme, 1999, was earlier raised before the Himachal Pradesh High Court through a series of writ petitions filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>. The High Court, in its judgment directed the State to extend pensionary benefits to the retired employees of the Corporation in accordance with the said scheme.<\/p>\n

However, this decision was subsequently reversed by a Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra), wherein the Court upheld the State’s withdrawal of the pension scheme for post-2004 retirees.<\/p>\n

Dissatisfied with that ruling, the present writ petition has been filed directly before the Supreme Court, once again seeking parity in pensionary benefits. One of the principal arguments advanced is that the decision in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) was rendered per incuriam<\/span>, having allegedly failed to consider several binding precedents of the Court, thereby warranting reconsideration by a larger Bench.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court noted that the Corporation was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956<\/a> pursuant to a notification dated 26-03-1974 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is completely owned and controlled by the State Government inasmuch as 100% of the share capital of the Corporation is owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh.<\/p>\n

Addressing the petitioners’ contention that the decision in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) was rendered per incuriam<\/span>, the Court unequivocally rejected the argument. It held that a judgment cannot be labelled per incuriam<\/span> merely because, in the opinion of the petitioners, the reasoning adopted therein may not align with certain earlier decisions. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of per incuriam<\/span> is a well-established and narrowly defined exception and does not apply in the present case. The Bench categorically stated that the Rajesh Chander Sood<\/span> judgment did not ignore any binding precedent and, therefore, could not be characterized as per incuriam<\/span> by any stretch of interpretation.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the contentions now raised by the petitioners had already been advanced and adjudicated in the earlier case of Rajesh Chander Sood (supra).<\/span> It held that the reliefs now sought are identical to those previously rejected, and it is not open to the petitioners to revive or re-agitate these claims through a fresh petition under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The Court emphasized that once its earlier decision had set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment in P.D. Nanda<\/span> v. State of H.P.<\/span>, 2013 SCC Online HP 5151<\/a>, the claims of both the petitioners in that case and similarly situated employees, including the present petitioners stood conclusively negatived. Accordingly, any direct or collateral challenge to the decision in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra)is impermissible, and the present petition was held to be without merit.<\/p>\n

The Court firmly reiterated that a decision rendered by it, whether at the stage of granting special leave or after leave is granted under Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> cannot be challenged either directly or collaterally by way of a writ petition under Article 32. The Court clarified that the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party lies in invoking the review jurisdiction of the Court. Should the grievance persist even after review, the curative jurisdiction may be invoked, subject to satisfaction of the conditions governing such relief.<\/p>\n

Stating that the current writ petition was “thoroughly misconceived,” the Court proceeded to dismiss it. In doing so, the Bench underscored the principle of finality in judicial proceedings, emphasizing that finality of a lis (legal dispute) is fundamental to the integrity and functionality of the judicial system. Reopening cases that have attained finality, especially through alternate constitutional routes, would undermine the sanctity of adjudication and lead to judicial chaos. Permitting such challenges, the Court warned, would erode public confidence in the justice delivery system and lead to unending litigation.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the Court held that the present writ petition filed under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> is entirely misconceived and devoid of merit. The Bench, after careful examination, stated that the issues raised had already been fully adjudicated in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra), a binding precedent on the present petitioners. Reasserting the principle of finality in litigation, the Court reiterated that a decision rendered under Article 136 cannot be re-agitated through a writ petition under Article 32.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioners are retired employees and senior citizens, the Court exercised leniency and refrained from imposing any costs.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
\n

Citation:<\/span>
2025 SCC OnLine SC 792<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Appellants :<\/span>
Satish Chander Sharma<\/p>\n

Respondents :<\/span>
State of H.P.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n

For Petitioner(s):<\/span>
Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anand Varma, AOR, Ms. Adyasha Nanda, Adv., Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span>
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv., Mr. Nishant Kumar, AOR, Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CORAM :<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"Surya
Surya Kant, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Dipankar
Dipankar Datta, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Ujjal
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Finality of a lis is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation which had concluded or had reached finality cannot be reopened. If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":346317,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[9682,33715,81292,81291,12441,3025,4841,81289,81288,81290],"class_list":["post-346312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-article-136","tag-curative-petition","tag-himachal-pradesh-corporate-sector-employees-scheme","tag-himachal-pradesh-state-forest-development-corporation-limited","tag-pensionary-benefits","tag-per_incuriam","tag-review-petition","tag-slp-decision-finality","tag-supreme-court-article-32","tag-supreme-court-judgment-challenge"],"yoast_head":"\nSLP and Post-Leave Decisions Not Challengeable Under Article 32: Supreme Court | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court affirmed that decisions made at SLP stage or post grant of leave under Article 136 cannot be challenged under Article 32; remedy lies in review or curative petition.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Decision rendered by Apex Court, at SLP stage or post grant of leave cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32: Supreme Court affirms\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court affirmed that decisions made at SLP stage or post grant of leave under Article 136 cannot be challenged under Article 32; remedy lies in review or curative petition.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-04-23T05:30:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-04-23T05:39:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Decision rendered by Apex Court, at SLP stage or post grant of leave cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32: Supreme Court affirms\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/\",\"name\":\"SLP and Post-Leave Decisions Not Challengeable Under Article 32: Supreme Court | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-23T05:30:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-04-23T05:39:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court affirmed that decisions made at SLP stage or post grant of leave under Article 136 cannot be challenged under Article 32; remedy lies in review or curative petition.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court Article 32\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Decision rendered by Apex Court, at SLP stage or post grant of leave cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32: Supreme Court affirms\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SLP and Post-Leave Decisions Not Challengeable Under Article 32: Supreme Court | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court affirmed that decisions made at SLP stage or post grant of leave under Article 136 cannot be challenged under Article 32; remedy lies in review or curative petition.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Decision rendered by Apex Court, at SLP stage or post grant of leave cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32: Supreme Court affirms","og_description":"Supreme Court affirmed that decisions made at SLP stage or post grant of leave under Article 136 cannot be challenged under Article 32; remedy lies in review or curative petition.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-04-23T05:30:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-04-23T05:39:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Decision rendered by Apex Court, at SLP stage or post grant of leave cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32: Supreme Court affirms","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/","name":"SLP and Post-Leave Decisions Not Challengeable Under Article 32: Supreme Court | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp","datePublished":"2025-04-23T05:30:24+00:00","dateModified":"2025-04-23T05:39:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court affirmed that decisions made at SLP stage or post grant of leave under Article 136 cannot be challenged under Article 32; remedy lies in review or curative petition.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"Supreme Court Article 32"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/sc-slps-not-challengeable-under-article-32\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Decision rendered by Apex Court, at SLP stage or post grant of leave cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32: Supreme Court affirms"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Supreme-Court-Article-32.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":272001,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/20\/himachal-pradesh-high-court-second-wife-entitled-to-family-pension-only-when-personal-law-of-deceased-employee-allows-bigamy\/","url_meta":{"origin":346312,"position":0},"title":"Himachal Pradesh High Court | Second Wife entitled to family pension only when personal law of deceased employee allows Bigamy","author":"Editor","date":"August 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition related to family pension, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J has held that the second wife of a deceased employee is not entitled to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 unless the personal law of the deceased employee allows more than\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Himachal Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278735,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/29\/uttar-pradesh-housing-development-board-function-fixing-conditions-service-on-employees-preetam-singh-modified-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":346312,"position":1},"title":"UP Housing and Development Board’s function does not include fixing its employees’ service conditions; SC modifies 2014’s Preetam Singh verdict","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"On 10.02.2020, a division bench had come to the conclusion that the view taken by this Court in Preetam Singh\u2019s case needs reconsideration after it prima facie found that the functions of the Board contemplated under Section 15 of the 1965 Act were wide enough even to cover the act\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-308.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":274007,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/19\/tripura-high-court-writ-petition-tripura-government-undertakings-expert-committee-policy-pension-civil-services-pension-rules-1972-life-insurance-corporation-of-india-article-14-employees-provident\/","url_meta":{"origin":346312,"position":2},"title":"Tripura High Court | Employees of statutory organizations cannot claim pensionary benefits as a matter of right","author":"Editor","date":"September 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Tripura High Court: In a batch of writ petitions filed for directing the State Government to provide similar Pension benefit as granted to the other similarly situated Tripura Government Undertakings, Arindam Lodh, J. has held that the writ court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tripura High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":344532,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/28\/himachal-pradesh-hc-grants-pensionary-benefits-daily-wage-worker-less-than-10-years-service\/","url_meta":{"origin":346312,"position":3},"title":"Himachal Pradesh HC grants pensionary benefits to daily wage worker with less than 10 years of service","author":"Editor","date":"March 28, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court held 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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Himachal Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238922,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/09\/hp-hc-whether-an-employee-who-retired-on-31st-of-a-month-is-entitled-to-increment-which-would-have-fallen-due-on-1st-of-the-next-month-hc-elucidates\/","url_meta":{"origin":346312,"position":4},"title":"HP HC | Whether an employee who retired on 31st of a month is entitled to increment which would have fallen due on 1st of the next month; HC elucidates","author":"Editor","date":"November 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ., dismissing the present claim against the increment accrued post-retirement, reiterated the effect of relevant Pension Rules and settled precedents. Brief Facts Petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in the Department of Industries (Geological wing)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6225,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/17\/delay-in-promotion-violates-the-fundamental-right-under-article-16-of-the-constitution\/","url_meta":{"origin":346312,"position":5},"title":"Delay in promotion violates the fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 17, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition relating to the delay in promotion of a Head Master, a single bench comprising of Rajiv Sharma, J, reiterated the legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Courts"","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/346312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=346312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/346312\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/346317"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=346312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=346312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=346312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}