S.D. Jayaprakash and Ors. v. Union of India

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 594Decided 29 Apr 2025
C.A. Nos. arising from SLP(C) Nos. 19539-19540 of 2021
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Background

The appellants were engaged as Data Entry Operators on a temporary, contractual basis between 1996 and 1999 under a government data-processing scheme. Following tribunal proceedings, they were formally regularised only from January 2015. They sought to have their earlier contractual years counted for seniority, service benefits, and pension. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled largely in their favour, but the Karnataka High Court set aside the parts of that ruling relating to seniority, service benefits, and pension, holding they could only count service from their 2015 regularisation.

Decision Breakdown

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants confined their argument to pension alone, relying on a recent decision (State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi) interpreting Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Court held that once a contractual employee is later regularised, Rule 17 applies and requires the earlier contractual service period to be counted toward pension, subject to the employee exercising an option about any provident-fund contributions already received during that period. It directed the Union of India to notify the appellants of how to exercise that option and to process their pension accordingly, partly allowing the appeals only on the pension issue (seniority and other service benefits were not argued and remained unaffected).

Lesson Learnt

Time spent working on a temporary contract before being made a permanent government employee is not automatically wasted for pension purposes. Once regularised, an employee can have that earlier service counted toward pension by exercising the option available under the Pension Rules.

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