LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Union of India & Ors. v. Balakrishnan Mullikote (Ex Hav 2568912 M)

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 286Decided 24 Mar 2026
C.A. No.-003708-003708 - 2026 (arising out of Diary No. 27246/2023, with connected matters)
Justice Manoj Misra · Justice Manmohan

Background

This was a batch of 49 connected appeals filed by the Union of India against ex-servicemen who, after completing service in the Regular Army, were re-employed in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) and later sought pension for their second spell of service in the DSC. In each case the individual's DSC service fell short of the normal 15-year qualifying period by up to one year, and the question was whether they could get that shortfall "condoned" (excused) under the Pension Regulations so they could still draw a DSC pension. The Union of India argued that special DSC-specific pension provisions excluded the general condonation benefit available to regular Army personnel.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that DSC personnel who chose not to count their earlier Army service (i.e., whose DSC service is treated as a fresh, independent engagement) are entitled to the same shortfall condonation of up to one year available to Regular Army personnel under Paragraph 125 of the 1961 Pension Regulations and Paragraph 44 of the 2008 Pension Regulations. The Court rejected the Government's argument that a separate DSC-specific provision (Paragraph 175) excludes condonation, calling the distinction "hairsplitting," and held that executive letters cannot override or amend validly framed statutory Pension Regulations. It also reaffirmed that pension is a vested, deferred component of past service and not a bounty that can be withheld at the government's discretion. All the Union of India's appeals were accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

A pension right earned under statutory regulations cannot be curtailed by internal government letters or circulars that are inconsistent with those regulations; ex-servicemen re-employed in the DSC are entitled to condonation of a service shortfall of up to one year, just like regular Army personnel, when claiming pension for their second spell of service.

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