LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Medini C v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 517Decided 21 Sept 2021
Civil Appeal Nos. 5811-5814 of 2021
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Background

A group of BSNL employees (Hindi Translators and Telecom Office Assistants) had been given ad hoc/officiating promotions to the post of Assistant Director (Official Language) before new 2002 Recruitment Rules came into force as a "one-time measure" to formalise such promotions. BSNL subsequently issued corrigenda removing pay restrictions on these employees, which the employees argued amounted to regularising their promotions under the 2002 Rules. A 2005 Rules superseded the 2002 Rules but promised not to disturb existing arrangements. Years of litigation followed between the employees, BSNL, the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the Kerala High Court: the High Court initially ruled for the employees in 2011 (a ruling the Supreme Court itself upheld in earlier rounds), but years later, the same High Court reopened and reversed its own 2011 judgment through review petitions, relying on an unrelated Supreme Court judgment about a different group of employees in Uttar Pradesh (Mishri Lal). The employees were then reverted to their lower posts, leading to the present appeals.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Kerala High Court had misapplied the Mishri Lal judgment, which concerned Uttar Pradesh employees who were never regularly promoted at all. By contrast, these Kerala-region appellants had their officiating pay restrictions formally removed through corrigenda issued with reference to the 2002 Rules: evidence that their promotions had, in substance, already been regularised before the 2005 Rules took effect. The Court also emphasised that the High Court's 2011 judgment in the employees' favour had already been tested and upheld by the Supreme Court in earlier special leave petitions and review petitions, and should not have been reopened years later based on a different precedent with materially different facts. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's later review orders were set aside, and the 2011 judgment (along with the underlying Tribunal order granting the employees relief) was restored, with a direction to extend monetary benefits and consider the employees for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme if applicable.

Lesson Learnt

A judgment that has already been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court should not be casually reopened and reversed years later through review petitions based on a different case with distinguishable facts; and whether a promotion counts as "regularised" under transitional recruitment rules can turn on administrative specifics, such as whether pay restrictions tied to officiating status were formally removed.

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