{"id":355648,"date":"2025-08-05T10:30:56","date_gmt":"2025-08-05T05:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=355648"},"modified":"2025-08-05T10:15:24","modified_gmt":"2025-08-05T04:45:24","slug":"legal-roundup-service-law-july-2025-roundup-recruitment-termination-posting-scc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/legal-roundup-service-law-july-2025-roundup-recruitment-termination-posting-scc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Service Law July 2025: Unpacking Key Judgments and Legislation Updates!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Service Law July 2025 Roundup provides an overview of important cases and key legislative updates of service law that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court\u2019s<\/span> decision to quash the recruitment of Assistant Professor and Librarians<\/span> and staying \u2018pay minus pension\u2019 rule, Rajasthan HC\u2019s<\/span> stand on termination on questionable integrity, Gauhati HC\u2019s<\/span> decision on appointments based on seniority-cum-efficiency principle<\/span> and Orissa HC\u2019s<\/span> take on denying maternity benefit to contractual employee, and more.<\/span> These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning recruitment, maternity benefit, termination, posting, family pension and other aspects of service law.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

LEGISLATION UPDATES<\/p>\n

New Employees\u2019 Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme expands insurance coverage for EPF members<\/p>\n

On 18-7-2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the Employees\u2019 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\u2019 Provident Fund. The provisions of this Scheme came into effect on 19-7-2025. Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PFRDA notifies Regulations to operationalize the Unified Pension Scheme<\/p>\n

On 19-3-2025, the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (\u2018PFRDA\u2019) notified the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (Operationalization of Unified Pension Scheme under National Pension System) Regulations, 2025 to operationalize the Unified Pension Scheme (\u2018UPS\u2019) introduced by the Central Government as an option under the National Pension System (\u2018NPS\u2019) for the employees of the Central Government who are covered under NPS. Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RECRUITMENT<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Why Supreme Court decided to quash recruitment of 1091 Asst. Professors & 67 Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab<\/p>\n

While deciding the appeal challenging Punjab & Haryana High Court\u2019s 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<\/span>* 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<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | \u2018Review of a review not permissible\u2019; Supreme Court upholds Calcutta HC judgment on finality of Review Medical Board\u2019s decision in BSF recruitment<\/p>\n

In a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, wherein it was held that the decision of the Review Medical Board in respect of the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Border Security Force (\u2018BSF\u2019) is final, and that no appeal or further medical examination can be entertained against its findings, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court, comprising Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. upheld the impugned judgment and declined to interfere, thereby affirming the legal position adopted by the High Court. [Union of India v. Yogesh Chhetri, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1469<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PAY MINUS PENSION RULE<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Supreme Court stays \u2018pay minus pension\u2019 rule for ex-defence faculty recruited by AIIMS Jodhpur<\/p>\n

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 \u201cPay minus Pension\u201d 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 \u201cPay minus Pension\u201d rule pending further consideration. [Dr. Arjun Singh Sandhu v. All India Institute of Medical Science, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1468<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PENALITIES IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Authority empowered to inflict minor penalties, under CCS CCA Rules, can issue charge sheet even for imposition of major penalties: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

The present appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 18-11-2022 (\u2018the impugned order\u2019) passed by the Karnataka High Court (\u2018the High Court\u2019), whereby the order dated 23-6-2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (\u2018the Tribunal\u2019), was set aside. The Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma<\/span>*, JJ., held that Rule 13(2) read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (\u2018CCS CCA Rules\u2019), 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<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TERMINATION<\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Order of termination on ground of questionable integrity is stigmatic; Holding enquiry mandatory: Rajasthan High Court<\/p>\n

In a civil writ petition filed by a conductor of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (\u2018RSRTC\u2019) challenging his termination order dated 13-05-2015 on ground of questionable integrity without any enquiry, a Single-Judge Bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur<\/span>, J., quashed the termination order holding that the termination of an employee based on allegations of questionable integrity is a stigmatic order where holding enquiry is mandatory. [Prakash Manda v. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation RSRTC, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3497<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Imposition of punishment is managerial function\u2019: Chhattisgarh HC upholds termination of Bhilai Steel Plant technician for habitual absenteeism<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by a former technician assailing the Appellate Authority\u2019s order affirming his termination from service, the Single Judge Bench of Narendra Kumar Vyas<\/span>, J., rejected the petition, holding that the petitioner was rightly punished with termination for being a habitual absentee. [M. Mohan Rao v. Bhilai Steel Plant, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 6159<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Rajasthan High Court | Appointed on compassionate ground; terminated after 15 years for having 3 children: A travesty of Justice<\/p>\n

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<\/span>, 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<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DISMISSAL AFTER DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY<\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Orissa HC awards compensation to workman unjustly dismissed from service by SBI for withdrawing money from deceased\u2019s account<\/p>\n

The petitioner, State Bank of India (\u2018Bank\u2019), filed the present writ petition challenging the award given by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (\u2018Tribunal\u2019), wherein it directed reinstatement of a Messenger (\u2018Workman\u2019) with 50% back wages after his dismissal for allegedly facilitating withdrawal from a deceased person\u2019s account. The Division Bench of Harish Tandon, CJ., and K.R. Mohapatra<\/span>*, 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<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

APPOINTMENT<\/p>\n

GAUHATI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Inside Gauhati HC order quashing In-Charge Headmaster\u2019s appointment; highlighting appointments to be based on seniority-cum-efficiency principle<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order issued by the District Elementary Education Officer (\u2018DEEO\u2019), whereby Respondent 5 was allowed to act as In-Charge Head Master cum Member Secretary, Robin Phukan<\/span>, J., stated that appointment of In-Charge Headmaster had to be made on the principle of seniority-cum-efficiency. Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to hold the post of In-Charge Headmaster cum Member Secretary with all financial powers of the school, in addition to his normal duties, until a regular Headmaster was posted in the said school. [Nozrul Islam v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 3346<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> | Can poor CIBIL score, and poor history of loan repayment be grounds for cancellation of bank\u2019s appointment? Madras HC answers<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order passed by the respondents (\u2018SBI\u2019) and direct the petitioner\u2019s appointment as Circle Based Officer (\u2018CBO\u2019), N. Mala<\/span>, J., referring to the recruitment notification, stated that the bank took a prudent decision that the candidates with history of default in repayment of loans and adverse CIBIL and other external agencies report were ineligible. Therefore, considering the petitioner\u2019s adverse CIBIL report and the recruitment notification, the Court upheld the impugned order cancelling the petitioner\u2019s appointment as CBO. [P. Karthikeyan v. SBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3238<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MATERNITY BENEFIT<\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Denying maternity benefit to contractual employee is abhorrent to humanity and womanhood: Orissa HC<\/p>\n

The present writ appeal was filed by the State challenging a Single Judge\u2019s 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<\/span>* 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 \u201czero separation\u201d between a lactating mother and her breastfeeding baby. [State of Orissa v. Anindita Mishra, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2606<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

FAMILY PENSION<\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> | Madras HC affirms right to family pension for mentally disabled children of Government servants, no income certificate required<\/p>\n

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<\/span>* 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<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

POSTING<\/p>\n

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

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<\/span>, 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<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUSPENSION<\/p>\n

MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u201cAbsence from service on misplaced notion\u201d: Meghalaya HC quashes suspension order against St. Mary\u2019s School teachers; Directs clearance of due payment<\/p>\n

In two petitions, the petitioners had sought the recall of the suspension order issued against them, along with related approval order and the enquiry report. They had also sought payment of the subsistence allowance and salary for the year 2008-2009. A Single Judge Bench of W. Diengdoh<\/span>, J., set aside and quashed the suspension orders, holding that it had become infructuous. Further, the Court directed the authorities concerned to pay the arrears subsistence allowance to the petitioners from the period they had been placed under suspension till date. [Felicita Rmen v. State of Meghalaya, WP(C) No. 455 of 2020 with WP(C) No. 456 of 2020] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RESERVATION<\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | No retrospective reservation benefit if community added to backward list after application deadline: Kerala High Court<\/p>\n

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<\/span>* 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<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/h2>\n