LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sukhdarshan Singh vs The State of Punjab & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 257Decided 3 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 811-812 of 2022
K.M. Joseph · Hrishikesh Roy

Background

The appellant, a government clerk, was suspended in 1986 over an embezzlement FIR (in which he was later acquitted) and, while still under suspension, was convicted in a separate 1995 case under Sections 324/506 IPC (causing hurt and criminal intimidation), with the High Court later reducing his sentence to time served. He was removed from service in 2003 based on this conviction. On appeal, the departmental appellate authority set aside the removal but, taking a sympathetic view, ordered that he get no salary for the suspension/removal period, treating it as "dies non" (a period not counted as service or paid). He then sued in civil court, which decreed that he was entitled to full salary for the period, and this was upheld in first appeal, but the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed this and held he was entitled to no back-pay at all, a decision that was partly revisited (but not overturned) at the review stage.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the appellate authority had exceeded its powers in imposing "dies non" (no pay, no service credit) as it did: this was not a recognized penalty under the applicable 1970 disciplinary Rules, so that part of the order could not stand. However, it also disagreed with the civil courts' opposite extreme conclusion that once a removal is set aside, an employee automatically gets full back-pay for the entire period with no further inquiry, holding that Rule 15(v)(f) of the Rules requires the competent authority to specifically determine whether the intervening period should be treated as duty for pay purposes, and this determination does not follow automatically from a reinstatement order. Since neither the departmental appellate authority nor the High Court had properly undertaken this specific exercise, the Court set aside both the High Court's judgment (which denied all back-pay) and the trial court's decree (which granted full back-pay), and instead directed the State authority to specifically decide, within three months, how the period from the 2003 removal to the 2009 reinstatement should be treated.

Lesson Learnt

When a wrongful dismissal is set aside, back-pay for the intervening period is not automatic: service rules typically require the competent authority to make a specific, reasoned determination on whether that period counts as duty and how much (if any) pay is due, especially where the employee was also separately convicted of an offence during that period.

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