Director General, CRPF & Ors. v. Janardan Singh & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 557Decided 2 Jul 2018
Civil Appeal No. 5850 of 2011
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

CRPF personnel (pharmacists) posted and serving in the North Eastern Region, but whose unit headquarters were located outside that region (in Shivpuri/Gwalior), were denied a "Special (Duty) Allowance" meant to encourage postings in the North East. The denial was based on a 1987 government order that limited the allowance to personnel whose headquarters were also within the region. The employees won before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court, which held they were entitled to the allowance for their entire period of actual service in the North East, not merely from August 2005 when the government issued a clarifying order removing the headquarters condition. The Director General, CRPF appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the original 1987 classification, distinguishing personnel by where their headquarters were located, rather than where they actually served, had no intelligible basis and no rational connection to the scheme's real purpose, which was to encourage and retain personnel actually serving in the North East. Applying the well-established two-part test for valid classification under Article 14 (an intelligible differentia, with a rational nexus to the law's object), the Court found the 1987 order's distinction failed both prongs and was therefore unconstitutional from the outset. The 2005 order was merely clarificatory of what the law always should have meant, not a new grant of benefit starting only from that date. The Court accordingly upheld the Tribunal and High Court's rulings and dismissed the Government's appeal.

Lesson Learnt

When a government classification used to deny benefits is later "clarified" or corrected, employees affected by the earlier unfair rule are often entitled to the benefit retroactively for their whole period of eligible service, not just from the date of the correction, if the original distinction never had a rational basis in the first place.

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