LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Central Bank of India & Ors. vs Dragendra Singh Jadon

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 782Decided 2 Aug 2022
Civil Appeal No. 5036 of 2022
Indira Banerjee · J.K. Maheshwari · V. Ramasubramanian

Background

The respondent, an Agricultural Assistant with Central Bank of India since 1975, was dismissed in 1982 after being accused of impersonating his brother in a bank recruitment test. An Industrial Tribunal later held in 2008 that the bank had failed to prove the charge and ordered reinstatement, but without back wages since he had been gainfully employed elsewhere in the interim. After both sides' challenges to that award were dismissed and the employee was reinstated in 2012, he filed a fresh writ petition seeking that his seniority and pay be fixed as if he had continued in service since the original 2008 award date, rather than being treated as a new appointee from his 2012 reinstatement date.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench both ruled in the employee's favour, holding he must be treated as in service from the date of his wrongful removal until actual reinstatement for purposes of seniority and pay fixation (though still without back wages). The bank argued this second writ petition was barred by res judicata since a similar issue had been litigated earlier, but the Supreme Court held that the earlier case concerned back wages for the period before the award, while this case concerned seniority and pay fixation after reinstatement: a distinct cause of action, so res judicata did not apply. The Court distinguished "reinstatement" (restoring an employee to his previous position and status) from "reappointment," and held that since the termination was found wrongful, the bank could not use its own wrongdoing to deny the employee seniority and promotion benefits he would have earned had he continued working.

Lesson Learnt

An employer cannot treat a wrongfully dismissed employee's eventual reinstatement as a "fresh appointment" to deny seniority and promotion benefits: reinstatement legally restores the employee's original service position, even if back wages for the dismissal period are separately denied.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case