Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.

com/abstract=2019806
IMPORTANT CASES IN SERVICE LAW- MY COMMENTS
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1151
Union of India v. N. Hargopal AIR 1987 SC 1227
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416
V.P. Girdoniya v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 MP 231
S.C. Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India 1993 (2) SCALE 12
Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36
Motiram Deka v General Manager, North East Frontier Railway AIR 1964 SC 600
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC 2889
D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130
Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others AIR 1999 SC 3471
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
It said that, in the reservation for the backward classes the creamy layer should be excluded. In
Indra Sawhney-I, creamy layer exclusion was only in regard to OBC. Therefore, there is nothing
with regard to the applicability of exclusion of creamy layer to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
In Indra Sawhney II v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 498, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated
the law laid down by it time and again that Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India
provide for rule of equality which is the basic feature of the Constitution and, therefore, there
can be no deviation from the principles enshrined therein while making the appointment.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
The main question was regarding the Constitutional Validity of Administrative Tribunals (Article
323A and Article 323B). In the case of Sampat Kumar it was held that though judicial review is
the basic feature of the Constitution, the vesting of the power of judicial review in an
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2019806
alternative Institutional Mechanism (Administrative Tribunals), after taking it away from the
High Court under Article 226, would not be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution,
so long it was ensured that the alternative mechanism was an effective and real substitute for
the High Court.
The present case is with reference to Sampat Kumars case only being referred to a larger
bench. The court held that till a wholly independent body is set up, all such tribunals would be
under Ministry of Law and all its decisions would be subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench in
High Court under Article 226. No appeal would lie to Supreme Court under Article 136.
Union of India v. N. Hargopal
This case held that appointment by calling the names from Employment Exchange was valid.
But it was overruled in a subsequent case called Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara
Rao. The subsequent case laid down that in addition to calling the names from the Employment
Exchange, vacancy has to be advertised in the local newspapers and the appointment only by
calling the names from the Employment Exchange will be hit by the provisions of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India for the reason that those persons who could not get their
names registered with, the Employment Exchange cannot be discriminated merely on that
ground.
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
This case was basically related to Article 311 and safeguards available to persons who are
employed in Civil Capacity under the Union of India. But this case is mostly remembered for its
analysis on Principles of Natural Justice. It held that the principles of natural justice are not the
creation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that Article 14 is not their begetter but
their Constitutional Guardian. It was also held that in Judicial Process, Quasi-Judicial Process
and Administrative Process, two rules have been evolved namely:
1. No man shall be a Judge in his own cause.
2. Audi Alteram Partem- Hear the other side.
V.P. Gidroniya v. State of M.P.
The appellant was a state employee against whom a Departmental Enquiry was placed. He was
under suspension. While under suspension, he gave a notice to the Department stating his
resignation. Subsequently, he was asked to file a reply to the charges against him. The
Appellant filed a Writ in the High Court saying that he has already resigned and no enquiry can
take place against him. The Petition was dismissed.
The Supreme Court first discussed the Master-Servant Relationship which explained that if
master has the power to suspend the servant pending an enquiry than such suspension will
only temporarily suspend the Master-Servant Relationship, the servant not being obliged to
render service. But such a power cannot be implied, it has to be explicitly mentioned in the
Service Rules or the Statute. In the present case, it was absent and court held that such an
order cannot be said to suspend the Contract of Service. Thus, it was open for the servant to
put an end to it.
S.C. Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India
Writ Petitions were filed by SC Employees regarding Pay Increase and Other reforms in Services
by Class II, III and IV Employees. The Supreme Court in response set up a Committee for
Reforms. Several reforms were made but with regard to Pay Increase, the committee asked the
court to refer the matter to the Pay Commission.
Meanwhile, similar Petitions were also filed in Delhi High Court. Delhi High accepted them and
introduced Reforms to the extent that they included Pay Increase as well. Take cue from those
petitions, the employees asked Supreme Court to invoke the principle of Equal Pay for Equal
Work. They said that the nature and standard of duties performed by employees in both the
courts is same if not more in the Supreme Court. Hence, they must get equal pay if not
enhanced Pay Scale.
In response to this, Supreme Court increased Pay of some class of Employees. The matter was
asked to be considered by Fourth Pay Commission. The Fourth Pay Commission did not suggest
any Pay Scale change.
Finally, Supreme Court disposed of the Petitions by saying that no grave and imminent question
of law was involved for which Special Leave Petition is being filed. Principle of Res Judicata was
also discussed but that is not important for us. Hence, No increase in pay took place.
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India
The Appellant was a Class III Railway Servant who was Officiating a Class II Post. His Confidential
Report contained certain adverse remarks because of which he was reverted back to Class III
Post by the General Manager. The Grounds were communicated to him.
The basic question in this case was whether the order that reverted him back to Class III Post is
in violation of Article 311 (2) or not, since it caused Reduction in Rank. Article 311 (2) provides
safeguards to employees under Union of India.
The Court held that although Article 311 (2) covers Officiating Posts as well, it would still not get
attracted because Article 311 (2) is available only in cases where dismissal, removal or
reduction in rank is sought to be inflicted by way of punishment and not otherwise. These are
something like Punishments given in Service Rules and Rules of Railway Code. Hence, the Order
is valid.
Motiram Deka v General Manager, North East Frontier Railway
Motiram Deka along with several other employees was terminated from Service under a
Specific Provision of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.
The only question to be discussed was whether the said rules were in contravention of Article
311 (2) or not, since they did not provide any opportunity of hearing and reason for
termination.
The Court answered in affirmative and said that
A person who substantively holds a permanent post is asked to leave his service, the
termination of his service must inevitably mean the defeat of his right to continue in service and
as such it is in the nature of a penalty and amounts to removal.
In other words, termination of the services of a permanent servant otherwise than on ground
of superannuation or compulsory retirement, must per se amount to his removal and if by the
said rules, such a termination is brought about, the rule clearly contravenes Art. 311(2) and
must be held to be invalid.
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The case involved clubbing of 3 matters related to some employees of State of Rajasthan. They
were not given the benefit of extension to work till the age of 60 years on the grounds of
quality of their work, disposal, integrity, general reputation and their potentiality and utility.
It involved the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India (It said that the retirement
age be increased to 60 years from the previous 58 years). The Court said that this case will not
be applicable to the present case as the employees in the present case are governed by
Rajasthan Service Rules which were not amended when rights of these employees came into
question.
The Court also said that in the instant case, we are dealing with the higher judicial officers. The
nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons
of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility.
Hence, the appeal was dismissed but all Retiral Benefits were made available to the Appellants
by the Court.
D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India
This case is related to Pensioners who were not being given Increased Pension Benefits because
of their Date of Retirement. The important questions to be deliberated are
Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility and computation of
pension?
Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement contain
the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative of
Article 14?
The Court said with the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice and the classification
being not based on any discernible rational principle having been found wholly unrelated to the
objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalized pension, it could be safely said that this
differential treatment is violative of Article 14 and unconstitutional.
The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be
based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped
together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. Also, Article 14 is certainly attracted where
equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis.
Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
The matter concerns a dispute relating to seniority of reserved candidates and general
candidates. It discussed two important questions.
The court held that the Promoted Candidates (reserved category) cannot count their seniority
in the promoted category from the date of their Continuous Officiation in the promoted post,
vis-a-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were
later promoted.
The Court also discussed the Catch-Up Rule. This rule was interpreted by the Court in a manner
that the experience of the Promoted Candidates (Reserved Category) must also be taken into
consideration for further Promotion.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen