Ex. Gnr. Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) Through LRs. v. Union of India & Ors.

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2017)Decided 22 Feb 2017
Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2017
Justice Dipak Misra · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

The appellant, enrolled in the Indian Army in 2005, developed an acute schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder after being repeatedly subjected to overwork and continuous night duty, leading to multiple hospitalisations. An Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability at 60% for life but classified it as a "constitutional" condition unconnected to military service, so he was invalided out of service without disability pension, and both the pension authority and the Armed Forces Tribunal rejected his claim. He appealed to the Supreme Court; he passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and his legal heirs were substituted in his place.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence the appellant suffered from any pre-existing mental illness at the time of joining the Army, a presumption of soundness applied, and it was for the Medical Board, not the applicant, to prove the disability predated his service, which it failed to do by not even examining his service records. Applying its earlier rulings in Dharamvir Singh and Rajbir Singh, the Court held that where the Medical Board does not properly justify finding no connection to service, a causal link between the disability and service conditions must be presumed. It therefore set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal, directing payment of disability pension to the appellant's widow and other legal heirs within eight weeks.

Lesson Learnt

A soldier is legally presumed medically fit at the time of enlistment, and the burden falls on the military/pension authorities, not the soldier or his family, to prove with proper evidence that a disability pre-existed service; if they fail to discharge that burden, the disability is presumed to be service-related and a pension claim survives even after the soldier's death, passing to his heirs.

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