LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ravi Khokhar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 233Decided 12 Mar 2026
C.A. No.-003351-003351 - 2026 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 27366 of 2023)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Vipul M. Pancholi · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellants are employees of the Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, set up in 1976 with presidential sanction to provide insurance and welfare benefits to Air Force personnel. When AFGIS's Board of Trustees decided in 2017 to delink employee pay scales from Central Government Pay Commission parity and required employees to accept the revised terms, the employees challenged this before the Delhi High Court. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, holding that AFGIS was not "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution (since it was self-funded and self-governed), and therefore no writ petition was maintainable against it in the first place.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court and held that AFGIS does qualify as "State" under Article 12, applying the cumulative "deep and pervasive control" test from Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. The Court found several indicators of governmental control: AFGIS was established with the President's sanction, its administration (Board of Trustees and Managing Committee) is composed entirely of serving IAF officers on deputation, its financial cash flow is monitored monthly by the Assistant Chief of Air Staff, and membership/premium deduction is compulsory for IAF personnel with no individual choice. The Court also held that AFGIS performs a "public function", providing insurance and welfare protection to armed forces personnel is part of the State's core obligation towards a class whose service is indispensable to national security. It further noted the inconsistency of AFGIS having itself previously claimed to be "Government" to claim a service-tax exemption, while denying that status to defeat the employees' claims. The Court restored the writ petitions and directed the Delhi High Court to decide the underlying grievance expeditiously, given the case had been pending since 2017.

Lesson Learnt

Whether a body can be sued through a writ petition (as "State" under Article 12) depends on the real, cumulative substance of governmental control over it (administrative composition, financial oversight, mandatory membership, and the public function it performs) not merely on its formal private/registered-society status; an organisation cannot claim to be "Government" for one benefit (like a tax exemption) while denying it to escape accountability to those it governs.

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