State of U.P. and Others vs. Karunakar Khare and Others

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 751Decided 26 Jul 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 2828, 2829, 2830, 2831 of 2015
B.R. Gavai · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

Ministerial-cadre employees in the U.P. Police's Establishment/Department had sought the benefit of a Government Order dated 7 December 1979, which granted an allowance/benefit to staff who worked on second Saturdays, Sundays, and gazetted holidays. A single judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed their claim, and a Division Bench upheld it, both ruling the benefit should apply from 7 December 1979 itself. The State of U.P. appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the starting date was wrong.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that in an earlier, related case (K.K. Misra v. State of U.P.), the Allahabad High Court had granted a similar benefit only from 23 September 1991 (the date of that judgment), and the Supreme Court itself had approved that date in 1992. A further Supreme Court ruling in 2007 reaffirmed that ministerial staff in the police get the same benefits as police personnel. Since the correct start date for this type of benefit had already been settled by earlier rulings as 23 September 1991, the Court held the High Court erred in backdating it to 1979. The appeals were partly allowed, and the benefit start date was modified from 7 December 1979 to 23 September 1991.

Lesson Learnt

When a benefit or entitlement's effective date has already been judicially settled in an earlier binding case, courts should apply that settled date consistently rather than granting it from an earlier, unapproved date, even when the underlying entitlement itself is valid.

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