एचपीएससी भर्ती अनियमितता मामले
CWP No. 24190/2018 (P&H HC) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
HPSC recruitment must be transparent and merit-based. Irregularities in selection process vitiate the entire recruitment. Courts can quash recruitment where procedural fairness is compromised.
Read Full Analysisकुलदीप सिंह बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
CWP No. 2587 of 2018 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Guest teachers in Haryana who have served for substantial periods are entitled to consideration for regularization. The State cannot treat them as dispensable despite relying on their services for years.
Read Full Analysisराम किशन बनाम हरियाणा लोक सेवा आयोग
CWP No. 12890 of 2017 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
HPSC cannot change the criteria or weightage for selection after the recruitment process has commenced. Any change in rules mid-process violates Article 14 and principles of fairness.
Read Full Analysisराम किशन बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
2017 SCC OnLine P&H 2894 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Pension is a right, not a bounty. Government cannot arbitrarily withhold or reduce pension of a retired employee. Pension disputes must be resolved promptly.
Read Full Analysisसतपाल बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
CWP No. 7652 of 2015 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
The age relaxation policy for ex-servicemen in Haryana government recruitment must be applied uniformly. Discriminatory application of the policy violates Article 14.
Read Full Analysisधर्मपाल बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
CWP No. 18465 of 2015 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Haryana government's policy of engaging Swasthya Karyakartas (health workers) on contractual basis for decades without regularization is exploitative. Directions issued for their regularization.
Read Full Analysisसतबीर सिंह बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
2015 SCC OnLine P&H 3256 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Transfer of police constables must follow the government transfer policy. Punitive transfer without disciplinary proceedings is prohibited. Transfer cannot be used as a tool of harassment.
Read Full Analysisसूर्य प्रकाश बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
CWP No. 27133 of 2014 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Contractual employees under HKRNL engaged for more than 240 days are entitled to regularization as per the statutory provisions. The State cannot keep workers on contract indefinitely.
Read Full Analysisपंजाब राज्य बनाम राफिक मसीह
(2015) 4 SCC 334 — Supreme Court of India
Government cannot recover excess payments from employees where: (a) payment was not due to employee's misrepresentation, (b) employee had no knowledge of overpayment, and (c) employee has already spent the amount in good faith.
Read Full Analysisविनोद कुमार बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
2014 SCC OnLine P&H 22487 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Government policy on regularization of contractual employees under HKRNL must be implemented uniformly. Selective application violates Article 14.
Read Full Analysisसुरेश कुमार बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
CWP No. 21456 of 2013 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules govern seniority determination. Inter se seniority must be strictly as per the date of joining and merit position in the select list.
Read Full Analysisराजबीर सिंह बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
CWP No. 5731 of 2013 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
HPSC recruitment must be fair, transparent and in accordance with prescribed rules. If the selection process is vitiated by irregularities, the entire recruitment can be quashed.
Read Full Analysisदीप्ती प्रकाश बनर्जी बनाम सत्येन्द्र नाथ बोस राष्ट्रीय केन्द्र
(2013) 6 SCC 336 — Supreme Court of India
Temporary or contractual employees who have worked for years cannot be terminated without following principles of natural justice. However, regularization cannot be claimed as of right.
Read Full Analysisपवन प्रताप सिंह बनाम रीवन सिंह
(2011) 3 SCC 267 — Supreme Court of India
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession. Must be granted within reasonable time and only to needy dependents.
Read Full Analysisकुलदीप सिंह बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(2011) 5 SCC 258 — Supreme Court of India
Daily-wage workers in Haryana government who have completed 240 days of continuous service cannot be terminated without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.
Read Full Analysisभगवान दास बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
CWP No. 3467 of 2011 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat employees in Haryana are entitled to minimum wages and cannot be paid below the prescribed minimum. The Panchayat cannot claim financial inability to deny minimum wages.
Read Full Analysisराष्ट्रीय जलविद्युत निगम बनाम नर्मदा
(2011) 6 SCC 803 — Supreme Court of India
Transfer policy must be uniform and non-discriminatory. The employer must follow its own transfer policy. Arbitrary departure from transfer policy is violative of Article 14.
Read Full Analysisकर्नाटक राज्य बनाम एम.एल. केसरी
(2010) 9 SCC 247 — Supreme Court of India
The one-time exception in Umadevi for regularization of employees who worked 10+ years applies to all such employees irrespective of whether they were parties to that case.
Read Full Analysisनगर समिति, पंचकुला बनाम सुरिंदर कौर
LPA No. 1082 of 2010 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Employees of Municipal Committees and Municipal Corporations in Haryana constitute separate cadres. Seniority in one cadre cannot be counted for promotion in a different cadre.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा राज्य बनाम गुरनाम सिंह
(2009) 16 SCC 269 — Supreme Court of India
Promotion to a higher post must be based on the relevant recruitment and promotion rules. The State cannot bypass the rules by making ad hoc promotions indefinitely.
Read Full Analysisराजबीर सिंह दलाल बनाम चौधरी देवी लाल विश्वविद्यालय
(2008) 9 SCC 284 — Supreme Court of India
University recruitment must follow UGC norms and guidelines. Appointments made in violation of minimum qualification requirements are void ab initio.
Read Full Analysisटेक चंद बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
2007 SCC OnLine P&H 1856 — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Regularization of contractual employees under HKRNL is subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed. Government must frame clear policy for absorption of daily-wage workers.
Read Full Analysisकर्नाटक राज्य सचिव बनाम उमा देवी
(2006) 4 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Irregular or contractual appointments cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. Public employment must follow Articles 14 and 16 — recruitment through proper process.
Read Full Analysisएम.वी. बिजलानी बनाम भारत संघ
(2006) 5 SCC 88 — Supreme Court of India
Next-below-rule — when a senior officer's seniority is restored, all consequential benefits including promotion must follow. Officers promoted in the interim do not lose their right.
Read Full Analysisसचिव, कर्नाटक राज्य बनाम उमादेवी (3)
(2006) 4 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Regularization of irregular or contractual appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Only duly selected candidates through proper recruitment process are entitled to regular appointments.
Read Full Analysisएम.वी. बिजलानी बनाम भारत संघ
(2006) 5 SCC 88 — Supreme Court of India
Promotion is not a fundamental right but employee has a right to be considered. Supersession must be based on rational and non-arbitrary criteria.
Read Full Analysisएम.ए. रशीद बनाम केरल राज्य
(2005) 2 SCC 18 — Supreme Court of India
The pay scale attached to a post at the time of appointment is a term of service. Any downward revision of pay scale without following due process and without valid justification is arbitrary.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा रोडवेज बनाम रूधन सिंह
2005 (3) SCT 590 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Haryana Roadways employees appointed on daily wages who have completed more than 10 years of service are entitled to be regularized in accordance with the Umadevi principles.
Read Full Analysisश्रीमती राम देवी बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
2003 (2) RSJ 625 (P&H) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Haryana government must follow the 1996 transfer policy for police personnel. Mass arbitrary transfers violate Article 14. A transfer order without adherence to the transfer policy is liable to be quashed.
Read Full Analysisरजिस्ट्रार जनरल, मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय बनाम आर. पेरासी
(2003) 7 SCC 222 — Supreme Court of India
A person promoted on temporary/officiating basis has no right to the promotional post. Reversion of such person to the parent cadre is not punitive and does not require disciplinary proceedings.
Read Full Analysisपी.यू. जोशी बनाम महालेखाकार
(2003) 2 SCC 632 — Supreme Court of India
Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal but not an absolute right. Difference in pay scales can be justified by difference in qualifications, responsibilities, and experience.
Read Full Analysisबी.एस. बाजवा बनाम पंजाब राज्य
(2002) 1 SCC 187 — Supreme Court of India
Settled seniority cannot be disturbed retrospectively. Reopening seniority after long gap causes grave prejudice.
Read Full Analysisभारत संघ बनाम एस.के. सिन्हा
(2001) 4 SCC 228 — Supreme Court of India
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession. It must be made only to meet the immediate financial crisis of the bereaved family. Delay of several years defeats the purpose.
Read Full Analysisओम कुमार बनाम भारत संघ
(2001) 2 SCC 386 — Supreme Court of India
Proportionality principle applies to disciplinary proceedings. The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Shockingly disproportionate punishment can be set aside by courts.
Read Full Analysisके. दुरईसामी बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य
(2001) 2 SCC 538 — Supreme Court of India
Daily wage workers performing same duties as regular employees for years are entitled to equal wages. State cannot exploit labour by keeping workers on daily wages indefinitely.
Read Full Analysisरूद्र कुमार सैन बनाम भारत संघ
(2000) 8 SCC 25 — Supreme Court of India
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to the normal rule of recruitment. It must be granted immediately after death/retirement of the breadwinner, not after years of delay.
Read Full Analysisरुद्र कुमार सैन बनाम भारत संघ
(2000) 8 SCC 25 — Supreme Court of India
If the initial appointment is illegal and void, no right accrues to the appointee. An illegal appointment cannot be regularized.
Read Full Analysisबी.वी. शिवैय्या बनाम के. अड्डांकी बाबू
(1998) 6 SCC 720 — Supreme Court of India
A person appointed to a particular cadre/post cannot be unilaterally transferred to a different cadre. The conditions of service at the time of appointment are binding on both employer and employee.
Read Full Analysisएस.एस. बोला बनाम बी.डी. सरदाना
(1997) 8 SCC 522 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Seniority of ad hoc/temporary promotees vis-à-vis regular promotees clarified. Length of continuous officiation in promotional post determines seniority subject to rules.
Read Full Analysisसुरिंदर सिंह बनाम पंजाब राज्य
(1997) 10 SCC 576 — Supreme Court of India
Reversion from a higher post to the lower cadre is not a punishment if the employee held the higher post only in an officiating or temporary capacity. The employee has no vested right in the higher post.
Read Full Analysisपवन कुमार बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(1996) 2 SCC 340 — Supreme Court of India
Pay fixation on promotion must give a minimum benefit. An employee promoted to a higher post cannot draw less pay than what was being drawn in the lower post plus one increment.
Read Full Analysisपवन कुमार बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(1996) 2 SCC 714 — Supreme Court of India
Seniority in government service is a valuable civil right. It cannot be taken away without following due process of law. Any alteration of seniority list must be preceded by notice and hearing.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा राज्य बनाम जसमेर सिंह
(1996) 11 SCC 77 — Supreme Court of India
Contractual employee retained beyond tenure cannot be terminated without following principles of natural justice.
Read Full Analysisउपभोक्ता शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधान केंद्र बनाम भारत संघ
(1995) 3 SCC 42 — Supreme Court of India
Right to life under Article 21 includes right to health, hygienic working conditions, and medical care during and after employment. Employers must ensure safe working conditions.
Read Full Analysisराष्ट्रीय अंधजन संघ बनाम यू.पी.एस.सी.
(1993) 2 SCC 411 — Supreme Court of India
Recruitment bodies must follow fair and transparent selection processes. Any irregularity in the recruitment process vitiates the entire selection.
Read Full Analysisप्रबंध निदेशक, ECIL बनाम बी. कारुणाकर
(1993) 4 SCC 727 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Non-supply of inquiry report before imposing punishment in departmental proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The delinquent employee has a right to receive the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority passes final order.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा राज्य बनाम पियारा सिंह
(1992) 4 SCC 118 — Supreme Court of India
Temporary or ad hoc employees who have served for a long period cannot be terminated without following principles of natural justice. They are entitled to be heard before termination.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा राज्य बनाम पियारा सिंह
(1992) 4 SCC 118 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Government cannot relax age/qualification conditions for individual candidates. Relaxation must be general and not person-specific, otherwise it violates Article 14.
Read Full Analysisभारत संघ बनाम के.वी. जानकीरमन
(1991) 4 SCC 109 — Supreme Court of India
Sealed cover procedure — where departmental proceedings are pending, employee can be considered for promotion but result kept in sealed cover pending outcome of proceedings.
Read Full Analysisशंकरसन दास बनाम भारत संघ
(1991) 3 SCC 47 — Supreme Court of India
A candidate on the select list has no indefeasible right to appointment. The State is not bound to fill all available vacancies. However, the State cannot act arbitrarily or in a mala fide manner.
Read Full Analysisभारत संघ बनाम के.वी. जानकीरामन
(1991) 4 SCC 109 — Supreme Court of India
A government employee under suspension or facing disciplinary/criminal proceedings cannot claim promotion as of right but is entitled to be considered. Sealed cover procedure established.
Read Full Analysisसीधी भर्ती वर्ग-II इंजीनियरिंग अधिकारी बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
(1990) 2 SCC 715 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Seniority between direct recruits and promotees must be determined by quota-rota rule. Length of continuous officiation determines seniority within each category.
Read Full Analysisसीधी भर्ती द्वितीय श्रेणी अभियंता अधिकारी संघ बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
(1990) 2 SCC 715 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Seniority between direct recruits and promotees must be determined by quota-rota rule. Once the quota is filled, seniority is determined by the date of continuous officiation in the cadre.
Read Full Analysisपंजाब राज्य बनाम जोगिंदर सिंह
(1990) 2 SCC 484 — Supreme Court of India
Transfer is an incident of service and does not require reasons. However, transfer cannot be punitive or motivated by mala fides.
Read Full Analysisटी.आर. कपूर बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(1987) 2 SCC 58 — Supreme Court of India
When a government servant is acquitted in criminal proceedings, the employer cannot take departmental action on the same charges unless there are compelling reasons. Acquittal must be given due weight.
Read Full Analysisनरेन्द्र चढ्ढा बनाम भारत संघ
(1986) 2 SCC 157 — Supreme Court of India
An employee on deputation retains a lien on the parent cadre post. Period of deputation counts for seniority and promotion in the parent cadre unless rules provide otherwise.
Read Full Analysisरत्तन लाल बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(1985) 4 SCC 43 — Supreme Court of India
When dismissal is set aside by court, the employee is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The burden is on the employer to prove that back wages should not be paid.
Read Full Analysisनीरजा चौधरी बनाम मध्य प्रदेश राज्य
(1984) 3 SCC 243 — Supreme Court of India
Release of bonded labourers without rehabilitation is cruelty. The State must ensure identification, release AND rehabilitation of bonded labourers.
Read Full Analysisबी.एस. मिन्हास बनाम भारतीय सांख्यिकी संस्थान
(1984) 1 SCC 131 — Supreme Court of India
An institution receiving government grants is "State" under Article 12. Employees of such bodies are entitled to Article 14 and 16 protection against arbitrary termination.
Read Full Analysisडी.एस. नकारा बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1983 SC 130, (1983) 1 SCC 305 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Pension is a right, not a bounty or gratuitous payment. Classification of pensioners into pre- and post-cutoff date categories for different pension benefits violates Article 14.
Read Full Analysisरणधीर सिंह बनाम भारत संघ
(1982) 1 SCC 618 — Supreme Court of India
Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal derivable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together.
Read Full Analysisआर.एस. मकाशी बनाम आई.एम. मेनन
(1982) 1 SCC 379 — Supreme Court of India
Reversion from a promotional post must follow seniority in the lower cadre. Last person promoted must be the first to be reverted (last come, first go).
Read Full Analysisमैसूर राज्य बनाम एस.वी. नारायणप्पा
AIR 1967 SC 1071 — Supreme Court of India
Seniority of government servants must be determined as per the rules prevailing at the time of appointment. Seniority cannot be altered retrospectively to the prejudice of employees.
Read Full Analysisमैसूर राज्य बनाम एस.वी. नारायणप्पा
AIR 1967 SC 1071 — Supreme Court of India
When seniority is determined by date of appointment, an employee who joins earlier is senior even if the appointment order of another was issued earlier. Date of joining the post matters.
Read Full Analysisपंजाब राज्य बनाम जगदीप सिंह
AIR 1964 SC 521 — Supreme Court of India
Transfer is an incident of government service. No government employee has a vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Transfer orders are not justiciable unless vitiated by mala fides.
Read Full Analysisपंजाब राज्य बनाम जोगिंदर सिंह
AIR 1963 SC 913 — Supreme Court of India
Transfer is an incident of service. No government employee has a vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Transfer orders can only be challenged on grounds of mala fides.
Read Full Analysis