LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 287Decided 10 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Vikram Nath · Chandrachud

Background

Inspectors of Central Excise/Customs/GST who had been transferred between different administrative zones ("Cadre Controlling Authorities") under a long-standing practice called Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs) (often used to accommodate married couples working in different cities, employees with disabilities, or compassionate grounds) challenged a 2018 circular that withdrew the ICT facility altogether. The Kerala High Court upheld the withdrawal, holding that the 2016 Recruitment Rules envisaged each cadre as separate and did not provide for such transfers, so scrapping ICTs was not illegal. The affected employees appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the policy failed to account for genuine hardship cases like spouses being posted far apart or employees with disabilities needing family support.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court traced the history of ICT policy, including decades of government circulars specifically designed to help spouses in government service be posted together, and to accommodate persons with disabilities and compassionate cases. It reaffirmed that the right to family life and dignity is protected under Article 21, and that any government policy restricting such transfers must be a proportionate response: one that serves a legitimate aim, is suitable and necessary for that aim, and is properly balanced against individual rights, rather than an assumption-driven blanket rule. The Court accepted the government's stated concerns behind withdrawing ICTs, that they were being misused and were generating excessive litigation over cadre seniority, as legitimate administrative objectives, and therefore upheld the Kerala High Court's judgment allowing the 2018 circular to stand. However, it made clear that the withdrawal circular still permits case-by-case "loan basis" transfers for exceptional/compassionate circumstances, and directed the government to consider whether the policy should be specifically enhanced to better address spousal postings, disability, and compassionate transfers, while keeping any future policy anchored in constitutional values.

Lesson Learnt

Even when the government has a legitimate reason to tighten or withdraw an employee-friendly transfer policy, it cannot be completely blind to constitutionally protected concerns like family unity and the needs of persons with disabilities: such policies must be proportionate, and courts will push the executive to keep revisiting and refining them rather than treating administrative convenience as the only consideration.

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