State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan (Dead) by LRs & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 449Decided 28 Apr 2023
Civil Appeal No. 5392 of 2017
M.R. Shah · C.T. Ravikumar · J.B. Pardiwala as the second judge

Background

The respondents were appointed in 1971 to posts in Rajasthan's Animal Husbandry Department, and between 1976 and 1978 they applied for and were selected, after interviews, to work in the Rajasthan State Dairy Development Corporation's Milk Unions ("Dairy Federations"). A 1976 government letter told them their "lien" (their retained claim on their original government post) would last only two years or until their confirmation in the Dairy Federations, whichever came first. They worked in, were promoted within, and eventually retired from the Dairy Federations between 1999-2003, receiving retirement benefits there, but six to nine years after retiring, they filed writ petitions claiming they were still entitled to a government pension because their lien with the State had supposedly never ended. The Rajasthan High Court's Single Judge and then a Division Bench both ruled in the respondents' favour, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once the respondents accepted fresh appointment in the Dairy Federations after due selection and interview, and were later permanently absorbed/confirmed there, their lien on the earlier government post automatically stood terminated under Rule 18(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which does not permit a government servant to hold a lien on two substantive posts at once. The Court found the 1976 letter and their own appointment terms had made this clear from the outset, and rejected the argument that a lien can never be terminated without consent: that rule protects an employee from being left with no post at all, not one who has knowingly moved to and been confirmed in a new permanent post. Since the respondents had already received full retirement benefits from the Dairy Federations, the High Court's orders were quashed and the claim for a separate State government pension was rejected; the appeals by the State were allowed with no costs.

Lesson Learnt

A government employee cannot simultaneously hold a "lien" on two permanent posts. Once you accept confirmed/permanent appointment with a new employer after due selection, any lien on your earlier government post lapses automatically, and you cannot claim pension from your old employer years later after already taking retirement benefits from the new one.

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