{"id":377582,"date":"2026-03-07T10:30:59","date_gmt":"2026-03-07T05:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=377582"},"modified":"2026-03-07T10:31:34","modified_gmt":"2026-03-07T05:01:34","slug":"legal-roundup-service-law-february-2026-roundup-resignation-recruitment-appointment-pension-scc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/legal-roundup-service-law-february-2026-roundup-resignation-recruitment-appointment-pension-scc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Service Law February 2026: A Look at the Month\u2019s Biggest Cases and Key Legislative Update"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Service Law February 2026 Roundup provides an overview of important cases and key legislative update of service law that made headlines this month, such as the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026 proposing judicial diversity, reservation in promotion, etc., the Supreme Court’s<\/span> interpretation of dearness allowance being a right, not a bounty and non-application of Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act to Central Govt. employees holding Civil Posts, Delhi HC’s<\/span> decision on interest payable on delayed salary, Madras HC’s<\/span> clarification on distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement and more<\/span>. These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning recruitment, appointment, pension, pay and allowances, resignation and other aspects of service law.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE<\/p>\n

Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026 Proposes Judicial Diversity, Reservation in Promotion, SC Regional Benches & Caste Census Reform<\/p>\n

On 6 February 2026, DMK Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate P. Wilson introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026, proposing far-reaching constitutional reforms aimed at judicial diversity, reservation in promotions for backward classes, restructuring of the Supreme Court into regional benches, enhancement of the retirement age of High Court judges, and enabling caste-based census by States. The Bill seeks to embed social justice and representation more deeply into India’s constitutional framework. Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

APPOINTMENT FRAUD<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | “Strikes at the very root of education system”: Allahabad HC directs action against teachers appointed through fake or forged documents<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by an Assistant Teacher whose appointment had been cancelled after 15 years of service due to allegations of forged documents, the Single Judge Bench of Manju Rani Chauhan, J.<\/span>, rejected the petition, holding that no interference was required and the relief as prayed for could not be granted. Noting that there was a disturbing pattern of teachers being appointed through fake or forged documents, the Court issued a mandamus directing the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, to undertake a comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of the appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State. [Garima Singh<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 159<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DISCIPLINE, CONDUCT AND SOCIAL MEDIA<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Removal from service for tweeting\/re-tweeting corruption allegations against employer, disproportionate: Delhi HC set asides penalty<\/p>\n

In a writ petition challenging disciplinary action arising from social media posts and external communications alleging corruption within a public sector undertaking, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J.<\/span>, held that, while findings of misconduct against an employee for publicly disseminating allegations and bypassing prescribed institutional channels were sustainable, the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate. Observing that judicial review does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence but permits scrutiny of punishment on proportionality grounds, the Court set aside the penalty to the limited extent of punishment and remitted the matter for reconsideration. [Madanjit Kumar<\/span> v. Central Electronics Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 720<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PAY AND ALLOWANCES<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Dearness Allowance is a Right, not a Bounty; State cannot cite financial crunch to deny it: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

In a significant ruling on the rights of government employees, the Supreme Court has held that Dearness Allowance (DA) is a statutory and enforceable right, and not a discretionary benefit that a State can withhold citing financial constraints. The Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.<\/span>, made it clear that once Dearness Allowance becomes payable under the governing rules, the State is legally bound to release it, observing that denial of such dues directly impacts employees’ right to life and livelihood under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. [State of W.B.<\/span> v. Confederation of State Govt. Employees<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 155<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | No Interest Payable on Delayed Salary when delay attributable to employee’s own conduct: Delhi HC<\/p>\n

In a writ petition challenging orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) declining interest on delayed payment of salary and retiral dues, the Division Bench of Anil Khetarpal and Amit Mahajan*, JJ.<\/span>, affirmed the Tribunal’s orders holding that where delay in the disbursement of dues is substantially attributable to the employee’s own conduct, no entitlement to interest arises. The Court further held that interference under Articles 226 and 227 is limited and does not permit reappreciation of factual findings recorded by the Tribunal. [Bijender Kumar Gaur<\/span> v. NDMC<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 754<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Remuneration of Junior Resident Doctors qualifies as “salary” for EWS quota eligibility: Delhi HC upholds cancellation of AIIMS Doctor’s appointment<\/p>\n

While hearing a petition assailing the correctness of the order dated 13-1-2026 (‘impugned order’) whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) had declared the Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’) certificate submitted by the petitioner as invalid, the Division Bench of *Anil Kshetarpal, J and Amit Mahajan, J<\/span>, held that remuneration received by the petitioner as a Junior Resident Doctor qualified as ‘salary’ for the purposes of ascertaining eligibility under the EWS quota. Since the remuneration so received crossed the ceiling for EWS criteria, the Court held the EWS certificate to be invalid and canceled the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Senior Resident. [Bahubali N. Shetti (Dr.)<\/span> v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 517<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PENSION, RETIRAL BENEFITS & SERVICE DUES<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Disability pension arrears can’t be restricted to three years once broad banding entitlement stands judicially settled: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

The batch of civil appeals under Section 30<\/a> of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007<\/a> (the Act) arising out of conflicting decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal on the period for which arrears of disability pension are payable. While some Benches granted arrears from the applicable cut-off dates, 01-01-1996 or 01-01-2006, others restricted arrears to three years preceding the filing of the original application. A Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.<\/span>, held the ex-servicemen were entitled to disability pension, including the benefit of broad banding, with effect from 01-01-1996 or 01-01-2006, as applicable and directed the payment of arrears along with interest at 6% per annum. The Court quashed and set aside the orders of the Tribunal restricting arrears to three years. [Union of India<\/span> v. SGT Girish Kumar<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 194<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act doesn’t apply to Central Govt. employees holding Civil Posts: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

In civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Madras High Court regarding gratuity claim entitlement of retired employees of the Heavy Water Plant (“HWP”), Tuticorin, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972<\/a> (“Payment of Gratuity Act”). The principal question before the Court was whether the employees of HWP, functioning under the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, fall within the definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, or whether they stand excluded by virtue of holding civil posts under the Central Government and being governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“Pension Rules”). A Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti,* JJ.<\/span>, upheld the High Court’s judgment and held that the Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to the employees of Heavy Water Plant, Tuticorin and therefore petitioners are not entitled to claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. [N. Manoharan<\/span> v. Administrative Officer<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 189<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Technical objections can’t defeat Covid-19 compensation to Frontline Municipal Worker’s Family; Bombay HC directs immediate release of ₹50 Lakh ex-gratia benefits<\/p>\n

While considering a writ petition under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, the Division Bench of M.S. Karnik* and S.M. Modak, JJ.<\/span>, observed that the legal heirs of a municipal employee who died in harness due to Covid-19 were entitled to ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50,00,000 under Government Resolutions (‘GR’) issued by the State. The Court held that once the Municipal Council had scrutinised and forwarded the proposal with supporting documents, further technical verification could not be insisted upon. Emphasising that denial of compensation merely because the employee was admitted to a private hospital was arbitrary and unjust, the Court directed the Collector to process the claim expeditiously and cautioned against delay on technical grounds. [Sulochana Sharad Kulkarni<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1049<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Medical Board’s bald plea of “lifestyle disorder” insufficient to deny disability pension: Delhi High Court<\/p>\n

In an appeal challenging Armed Forces Tribunal’s order which held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension even when the Release Medical Board opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service but is the result of lifestyle disorder, a Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao* and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.<\/span>, affirmed the Tribunal’s order of granting disability pension to the respondent and held that a bald statement by the Medical Board that a disability is lifestyle related or not attributable to service, without recording individualised reasons, is insufficient to deny disability pension. [Union of India<\/span> v. Tejpal Singh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 374<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Ex gratia, leave encashment cannot be denied to sole legal heir married daughter: Madhya Pradesh HC grants relief to District Court driver’s daughter<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by a married daughter seeking service dues of her father, the Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal*, JJ.<\/span>, allowed the petition, holding that the ex gratia and leave encashment of the deceased employee ought to be paid to his legal heir irrespective of her marital status. [Prasanna Namdev<\/span> v. High Court of M.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 1358<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Targeted Vendetta & Institutional Bias vitiate Selection Process; Supreme Court grants relief to Ex-Army Officer; Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost<\/p>\n

In a writ petition unveiling “a sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta, full of mala fide actions and protracted persecution”<\/span>, compelling a senior civil servant and former Armed Forces officer to repeatedly knock at the doors of constitutional courts. While noting that the petitioner, despite having an unblemished service record and been ranked first by a duly constituted Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment as Member (Accountant), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was persistently denied appointment through a series of obstructive administrative actions and bias in Search-cum-Selection Committee, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the petitioner had been subjected to grave injustice, rank high-handedness, and deliberate obstruction bordering on vendetta by the respondents. Setting aside the minutes of the impugned selection meeting, the Court directed the convening of a fresh Search-cum-Selection Committee, expressly excluding the concerned officer, and imposed ₹5,00,000\/- costs on the respondents for their continued procrastination and mala fide conduct. [Pramod Kumar Bajaj<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 127<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Error in recruitment notice does not create vested right to appointment on candidate: Delhi High Court<\/p>\n

While hearing an application challenging the order dated 15-10-2025 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) had allowed the petitioner’s application regarding her recruitment in the National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases (‘Institute’), the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal, J*<\/span> and Amit Mahajan, J, held that an error in the recruitment notice did not create a vested or enforceable right to appointment in the respondent. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order. [National Institute of Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases<\/span> v. Shweta<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 298<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Examiner entitled to correct\/re-evaluate marks “at the first blush”; Delhi HC dismisses plea challenging DJSE-2023 evaluation process<\/p>\n

In a writ petition challenging the evaluation process of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2023 (DJSE-2023), where the petitioner alleged unlawful alteration and reduction of marks after the initial assessment of her answer script, a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., found no justification to restore the alleged original marks or to direct re-evaluation of the impugned answers. The Court held that in the absence of mala fide, bias, or demonstrable material error, alteration of marks in subjective answers by an examiner prior to final submission of answer scripts does not warrant judicial interference, particularly where re-evaluation is expressly prohibited by statutory rules and interference would unsettle concluded appointments. [Prerna Gupta<\/span> v. Registrar General of Delhi High Court<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 459<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delhi HC raps SSC for serious lapses in administration of CGLE question papers and answer keys<\/p>\n

While hearing a batch of writ petitions under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> assailing the correctness of the orders dated 30-5-2025, 17-7-2025 and 11-8-2025 (‘impugned orders’) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal,* and Amit Mahajan, JJ.<\/span>, expressed concerns over the serious lapses in the administrative diligence of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in conduction of the for Combined Graduate Level Examination (‘CGLE’), 2024. However, the Court noted that since the impugned orders suffered from no patent illegality or perversity, interreference with the same was not warranted and accordingly dismissed the petitions. [Devyanshu Suryavanshi<\/span> v. Staff Selection Commission<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 443<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Discriminatory to candidates who complied with instructions’: Madhya Pradesh HC dismisses aspirants plea to accept late documents on medical grounds<\/p>\n

In a petition under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> , praying to direct the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission to accept documents after the expiry of prescribed time on medical ground, the court rejected a plea for late document submission and reinforced that recruitment authorities cannot relax deadlines unless the rules expressly allow it. A Single Judge Bench of Jai Kumar Pillai, J.<\/span>, held that granting such relief would not only be unacceptable in eyes of law, as there is no clause for such relaxation in the official advertisement, but also discriminatory to candidates who complied with Commission’s instructions despite their personal challenges. In view of the settled law in this context, the Court found no reason to interfere with the recruitment process which had attained finality and thereby dismissed the petition. [Aaradhna Buj<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 394<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RESIGNATION<\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Refusal to accept resignation and forcing continued service amounts to bonded labour under Article 23: Kerala HC<\/p>\n

In a case dealing with whether an employer can refuse to accept the resignation of a Company Secretary and compel continued service, particularly when there has been default in payment of salary, a Single Judge Bench of N. Nagaresh, J.<\/span>, held that in absence of violation of any notice or contractual conditions or contemplated disciplinary proceedings, an employer cannot desist from accepting a resignation. The Court observed that not accepting resignation and forcing continued service amounts to bonded labour prohibited under Article 23<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. Accordingly, while allowing the writ petitions, the Court set aside the impugned memos and directed the respondents to accept the resignation and relieve the petitioner within two months. [Greevas Job Panakkal<\/span> v. Traco Cable Co. Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 2210<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> | Resignation on medical grounds entails forfeiture of service: Madras HC clarifies distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement<\/p>\n

While considering a reference arising from conflicting Division Bench rulings, the three-Judge Bench of S.M. Subramaniam*, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy and C. Kumarappan, JJ.<\/span>, held that resignation, even on medical grounds, results in forfeiture of past service under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (‘Rules of 1978’). The Court clarified that resignation cannot be equated with voluntary retirement, and medical grounds do not alter the legal consequences of resignation. [D. Kaliyamoorthy<\/span> v. State of T.N.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 1233<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATIONS<\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Orissa High Court upholds Two-child norm disqualification; rules protective proviso inapplicable to Panchayat membership termination<\/p>\n

While deciding an intra-court appeal challenging termination of membership of a Grama Panchayat on the ground of disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (‘Act of 1964’), a Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.<\/span>, upheld the order of the Single Judge. The Court ruled that the statutory protection under the proviso to the two-child norm was inapplicable, squarely attracting the disqualification clause. Finding no ground to interfere, the Court dismissed the appeal. [Maheswar Jena<\/span> v. Madhusudan Dalai<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 386<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/h2>\n