Important Cases in Service Law

I studied these cases during college days. These cases are the landmark cases in Service Law. Hope you find it useful.

Mind you, this summary deals with only the important points relating to service law in these cases. It is in no way a substitute to a full reading. A full reading of these cases is always better. However, during exam days, a lot of students just need the ratio and summary of cases. It is for this purpose that I made these short notes. 

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

In the reservation for the backward classes the creamy layer should be excluded. The exclusion makes the class a truly backward class.

In Indra Sawhney-I, creamy layer exclusion was only in regard to OBC. Therefore, there is nothing with regard to the applicability of exclusion of creamy layer to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

In Indra Sawhney II v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 498, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law laid down by it time and again that Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India provide for rule of equality which is the basic feature of the Constitution and, therefore, there can be no deviation from the principles enshrined therein while making the appointment.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India

The main question was regarding the Constitutional Validity of Administrative Tribunals (Article 323A and Article 323B).  In the case of Sampat Kumar  it was held that though judicial review is the  basic  feature  of  the  Constitution,  the  vesting  of  the  power  of  judicial  review  in  an alternative Institutional Mechanism (Administrative Tribunals), after taking it away from the High Court under Article 226, would not be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, so long it was ensured that the alternative mechanism was an effective and real substitute for the High Court.

The present case is with reference to Sampat Kumar’s case only being referred to a larger bench. The court held that till a wholly independent body is set up, all such tribunals would be under Ministry of Law and all its decisions would be subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench in High Court under Article 226. No appeal would lie to Supreme Court under Article 136.

Union of India v. N. Hargopal

This case held that appointment by calling the names from Employment Exchange was valid. But it was overruled in a subsequent case called Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao. The subsequent case laid down that in addition to calling the names from the Employment Exchange, vacancy has to be advertised in the local newspapers and the appointment only by calling the names from the Employment Exchange will be hit by the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for the reason that those persons who could not get their names registered with, the Employment Exchange cannot be discriminated merely on that ground.

Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel

This case was basically related to Article 311 and safeguards available to persons who are employed in Civil Capacity under the Union of India. But this case is mostly remembered for its analysis on Principles of Natural Justice. It held that the principles of natural justice are not the creation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that Article 14 is not their begetter but their Constitutional Guardian. It was also held that in Judicial Process, Quasi-Judicial Process and Administrative Process, two rules have been evolved namely:

1.   No man shall be a Judge in his own cause.

2.   Audi Alteram Partem- Hear the other side.

V.P. Gidroniya v. State of M.P.

The appellant was a state employee against whom a Departmental Enquiry was placed. He was under suspension. While under suspension, he gave a notice to the Department stating his resignation.  Subsequently,  he  was  asked  to  file  a  reply  to  the  charges  against  him.  The Appellant filed a Writ in the High Court saying that he has already resigned and no enquiry can take place against him. The Petition was dismissed.

The Supreme Court first discussed the Master-Servant Relationship which explained that if master has the power to suspend the servant pending an enquiry than such suspension will only temporarily suspend the Master-Servant Relationship, the servant not being obliged to render service. But such a power cannot be implied, it has to be explicitly mentioned in the Service Rules or the Statute. In the present case, it was absent and court held that such an order cannot be said to suspend the Contract of Service. Thus, it was open for the servant to put an end to it.

S.C. Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India

Writ Petitions were filed by SC Employees regarding Pay Increase and Other reforms in Services by Class II, III and IV Employees. The Supreme Court in response set up a Committee for Reforms. Several reforms were made but with regard to Pay Increase, the committee asked the court to refer the matter to the Pay Commission.

Meanwhile, similar Petitions were also filed in Delhi High Court. Delhi High accepted them and introduced Reforms to the extent that they included Pay Increase as well. Take cue from those petitions, the employees asked Supreme Court to invoke the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”. The said that the nature and standard of duties performed by employees in both the courts is same if not more in the Supreme Court. Hence, they must get equal pay if not enhanced Pay Scale.

In response to this, Supreme Court increased Pay of some class of Employees. The matter was asked to be considered by Fourth Pay Commission. The Fourth Pay Commission did not suggest any Pay Scale change.

Finally, Supreme Court disposed of the Petitions by saying that no grave and imminent question of law was involved for which Special Leave Petition is being filed. Principle of Res Judicata was also discussed but that is not important for us. Hence, No increase in pay took place.

Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India

The  Appellant  was  a  Class  III  Railway  Servant  who  was  Officiating  a  Class  II  Post.  His Confidential Report contained certain adverse remarks because of which he was reverted back to Class III Post by the General Manager. The Grounds were communicated to him.

The basic question in this case is whether the order that reverted him back to Class III Post is in violation of Article 311 (2) or not, since it caused Reduction in Rank. Article 311 (2) provides safeguards to employees under Union of India.

The Court held that although Article 311 (2) covers Officiating Posts as well, it would still not get attracted  because  Article  311  (2)  is  available  only  in  cases  where  dismissal,  removal  or reduction in rank is sought to be inflicted by way of punishment and not otherwise. These are something like Punishments given in Service Rules and Rules of Railway Code. Hence, the Order is valid.

Motiram Deka v General Manager, North East Frontier Railway

Motiram  Deka  along  with  several  other  employees  was  terminated from  Service  under  a Specific Provision of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.

The only question to be discussed was whether the said rules were in contravention of Article 311  (2)  or  not,  since  they  did  not  provide  any  opportunity  of  hearing  and  reason  for termination. The Court answered in affirmative and said that

“A  person  who  substantively  holds  a  permanent  post  is  asked  to  leave  his  service,  the termination of his service must inevitably mean the defeat of his right to continue in service and as such it is in the nature of a penalty and amounts to removal.”

In other words, termination of the services of a permanent servant otherwise than on ground of superannuation or compulsory retirement, must per se amount to his removal and if by the said rules, such a termination is brought about, the rule clearly contravenes Art. 311(2) and must be held to be invalid.

Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

The case involved clubbing of 3 matters related to some employees of State of Rajasthan. They were not given the benefit of extension to work till the age of 60 years   on the grounds of quality of their work, disposal, integrity, general reputation and their potentiality and utility.

It involved the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India (It said that the retirement age be increased to 60 years from the previous 58 years). The Court said that this case will not be applicable to the present case as the employees in the present case are governed by Rajasthan Service Rules which were not amended when rights of these employees came into question.

The Court also said that in the instant case, we are dealing with the higher judicial officers. The nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility.

Hence, the appeal was dismissed but all Retiral Benefits were made available to the Appellants by the Court.

D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India

This case is related to Pensioners who were not being given Increased Pension Benefits because of their Date of Retirement. The important question to be deliberated are

•              Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility and computation of pension?

•              Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement contained the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14?

The Court said with the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice and the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalized pension, it could be safely said that this differential treatment is violative of Article 14 and unconstitutional.

The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. Also, Article 14 is certainly attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis.

Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

The matter concerns a dispute relating to seniority of reserved candidates and general candidates. It discussed two important questions.

The court held that the Promoted Candidates (reserved category) cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their Continuous Officiation in the promoted post, vis-a-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted.

The Court also discussed the Catch-Up Rule. This rule was interpreted by the Court in a manner that the experience of the Promoted Candidates (Reserved Category) must also be taken into consideration for further Promotion.