February 2024 S.C. Judgements
CHATRAPAL VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
C.A. No. 002461 / 2024
Facts: The appellant was a Class-IV employee in the Bareilly judgeship and was transferred and posted as a Process Server in another court. The employee was denied the allowance as a Process Server, and against this he made a representation to superior authorities such as the Registrar General of the High Court and other officials of the State Government including the then Chief Minister without routing the same through proper channels. He was subsequently terminated from his post for this breach of proper procedure while making representations.
​​
Judgment: The Apex Court held that an employee cannot be terminated from the post merely because he sent a representation to his superior officers flouting the proper channel. It observed that due to the fact that if the appellant, a Class-IV employee, was in financial hardship, then he may represent directly to the superior officer but that by itself cannot amount to a major misconduct. Thus, no termination of his service should be imposed. Based on the above findings, the Supreme Court directed for the reinstate of the employee in service.
DR. MRS. SUMAN V. JAIN V. MARWADI SAMMELAN THR. ITS SECRETARY
2024 INSC 127
Facts: The appellant was employed as a Principal in a college run by the Respondent trust. Her appointment was permanent and she discharged her duties for a decade. After this period, she submitted a letter of resignation intimating her wish to resign in 6 months’ time owing to health issues. The management accepted this on its own and unilaterally mentioned that it would be final, binding and irrevocable. After this, the appellant withdrew her resignation letter before the effective date, which was rejected by the college management, who held that the resignation date was considered final. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal against this decision.
Judgment: The Apex Court, on appeal from the Bombay High Court, observed that no prior consent was given by the appellant to the management’s decision to make the resignation final, binding and irrevocable. In such a case, the acceptance of resignation was unilateral and thus, there was no implied contract and understanding with prior consent. Therefore, the withdrawal of such resignation by appellant prior to the effective date was permissible by the law.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS EX. LT. SELINA JOHN
Civil Appeal No. 1990 of 2019
Facts: The respondent was a Permanent Commissioner Officer in the Military Nursing Service who was discharged for getting married, which was a rule was applicable only to women nursing officers. She challenged this dismissal in the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow, which held in her favour. The State filed an appeal against the same.
Judgment: The Court noted this rule was a coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality and thus, manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Court observed that the acceptance of such a patriarchal rule undermines human dignity, right to nondiscrimination and fair treatment. It held that rules making marriage of women employees and their domestic involvement a ground for disentitlement would be unconstitutional, and withdrew the Army regulation prescribing thus. Court directed a compensation of Rs. 60 lakh to be paid to the respondent within 8 weeks and upheld the reinstatement of the respondent along with back wages
VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA VS. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
2024 INSC 100
Facts: The appellant was a government employee who worked under the Central government as a Postal Assistant. During his employment, he was selected for the post of Senior Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Government of Gujarat. The dispute arose as the State government only agreed to pay the pension to the appellant only for his job as a Senior Assistant and not at his previous government posting as a Postal Assistant. The appellant contended that as the State government had absorbed him from the Central government, he would be entitled to the pensionary benefits of the Central rules.
​
Judgment: The Court observed if the employment of a former central employee had an underlying pension scheme, and was later on absorbed by the State government, then he could not be refused the pension of his earlier employment. The Supreme Court held that the grant of pension was made in order to enable former employees to tide over financial hardship in his old age, and therefore the State government as a model employer should not resist the grant of pension. The Court concluded that the State government had absorbed the appellant and thus directed the State to recalculate the pensionary benefits and reimburse the arrears to the appellant
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SURENDER KUMAR PARMAR
SLP(C) No. 018286
Facts: The Respondent-employee was employed as a Computer Operator in the Health Service Department with the Himachal Pradesh government, but he was deployed to do the work of a clerk. He contended that other Clerks were being promoted to being Assistants, Superintendents etc. but there were no avenues of promotion available to him, despite him doing the same type of work. The State contended that since he was employed as a Computer Operator, it was a different post from the cadre of Clerks and since posts of Computer Operator were not included in any feeder cadre for promotion to higher posts, he had no right to be promoted. The High Court held the ruling in the employee’s favour, against which the State filed an SLP.
​
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh which had held that since he had completed 12 years and 24 years of service with the State government, the State is under an obligation to formulate promotional avenues. The Court observed that he had remained around one post for around 28 years, and this amounted to stagnation and a violation of a government employee’s rights. Thus, the Court found no merit in the SLP and dismissed the State’s appeal.
SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY V. THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
2024 INSC 97
Facts: The State of Jharkhand had posted an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for 22 vacancies. The appointment was to be guided by the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, as per which a candidate was required to get at least 30% marks in the viva-voce test for the District Judge Cadre. However, subsequently, a resolution was passed in a meeting of the High Court to secure 50% marks as the qualifying criteria. The petitioners contended that it would be impermissible for the HC to change the selection criteria midway, and was in contravention of the 2001 Rules.
​
Judgment: The Court held that it was impermissible for the HC to change the selection criteria midway, when it was a departure from the statutory rules. The Court noted that precluding a candidate from appointment without there being a finding of the candidate’s unsuitability, would be in violation of the recruitment rules and would fail the test of Article 14 and would be arbitrary. The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the High Court to fill up the existing vacancies as per the original recruitment criteria
MANOJ KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA
2024 INSC 126
Facts: The appellant was seeking appointment as a primary school teacher. In the vacancy circular of the school, it was stated that the employment would be taken on the basis of certain criteria and qualifications, and additional marks would be given for having a Post-Graduate degree. The appellant, having a PG Degree, was denied this benefit as his Degree was deemed to be “not in the relevant subject”. He contested this denial in the Delhi High Court on the ground that it was illegal and arbitrary, which ruled against him. Against this judgment, he preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.
​
Judgment: The Court held that unless a circular clearly prescribes that a degree must be in a particular field, then it cannot be claimed by the employer that a qualification is not valid simply because it is in another specialization. Since the requisite qualification of holding a PG Degree was established by the appellant, he cannot be denied the benefit of additional marks. The Court also noted that the High Court had ruled against the appellant citing restraint in judicial review. However, it observed when a citizen alleges arbitrariness in executive action, the High Court must examine the issue and while respecting executive functioning, cannot let arbitrary action pass through. The Court set aside the action of the respondents as being illegal and arbitrary. Since now there was no vacancy available, the Court could not direct the respondents to employ the appellant, but instead considered an alternative restitutory measure in the form of monetary compensation of Rs. 1 lakh
February 2024 H.C. Judgements
CAPTAIN GURPREET KAUR VS. PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
LPA-636-2022(O&M)
Punjab and Haryana High Court
​
Facts: The appellant was a military nursing officer who was governed under the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943, who was appointed for a period of 5 years. Later, when she applied for a post in the Punjab PSC under the ‘Ex-Serviceman’ category, her candidature was declined.
​
Judgment: The High Court held that a former military nursing officer will be covered under the definition of ‘ex-serviceman’ under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982. The Court observed that military nurses was raised as part of the Armed Forces of the Union and members of the service were of commissioned rank, liable for service only with forces and bound to undergo training and perform their duties in connection with Indian Military Forces. Further, it rejected the State's argument that the eligibility conditions and the benefits to be granted regarding reservations etc. were the prerogative of the employer. The Court held that this discretion could not overrise the administrative instructions of the Punjab or Central government rules and directed for the candidature of the appellant to be taken into consideration in light of the above ruling.
MISHA UPADHYAY V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
W.P. (S/S) No. 241 of 2024
Uttarakhand High Court
​​
Facts: The petitioner, who was 13-weeks pregnant, was issued an appointment letter for joining in a district hospital. After getting the requisite documentation including the medical fitness certificate, the petitioner went to the said hospital for joining in her post. However, she was denied joining by the impugned order on the ground that the medical fitness certificate held her “temporarily unfit for joining”. Aggrieved by the same, she approached the High Court for relief.
​
Judgment: The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a woman, after being duly selected, cannot be denied joining in service merely because she is pregnant. The Court noted that the petitioner had no other infirmity other than the fact she was pregnant, and thus was of the opinion that the treatment meted out to the lady by the respondent authorities amounted to ‘gender bias’ and no woman could be denied employment on account of her pregnancy. This would be violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Court disposed of the writ petitioner by quashing the impugned order and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to join service immediately.
NEETA KUMARI V UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
WPA 29978 of 2013
Calcutta High Court
​​​​
Facts: The petitioner was appointed as an Executive Intern with the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) on a contractual basis for three years, and challenged the failure of the bank to allow her maternity leave for a period of 180 days under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. The respondent bank contended that the petitioner was a contractual employee, and that the contract for employment made no provision of maternity benefits.
​
Judgment: The Court held that the rights under the Maternity Benefits Act were universally applicable over any concern of the government where ten or more people were employed in the preceding 12 months. Further, to differentiate between contractual and permanent emplyees for the purpose of maternity leave would amount to discrimination, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution and the object of social justice would stand defeated. Thus, the Court held that notwithstanding the contract between the parties, the petitioner had a statutory right to seek maternity leave.
DR. RAMCHANDRA BAPU NIRMALE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Writ Petition No. 15939 of 2022
Bombay High Court
​​​​​​
Facts: The petitioner was a former Medical Officer with the State, and during this service was found guilty of taking Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) by concurrently engaging in private service. For this, a punishment order for a reduction in salary was imposed on the petitioner. Upon his retirement, the State calculated his punishment based on his reduced pay scale. The petitioner protested this, contending that the punishment order did not state a perpetual reduction in salary and retiral benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court.
​
Judgment: The Court held that the effect of reduction in pay scales of a state government servant does not extend beyond the period of employment and does not impact post-retirement benefits such as pension. It asserted that when the punishment order was silent on postretirement benefits and reduction on future increments post the specified punishment period, then in that case withholding of increments post the period of punishment would be modifying the punishment which was impermissible. Thus, the Court directed the state to consider the last pay drawn before the penalty order’s implementation and recalculate the pensionary amount.
KUMARI NISHA V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS
Writ - A No. - 16068 of 2023
Allahabad High Court
​​​​​​​
Facts: The petitioner’s father had died in service while working as a headmaster of a primary school, leaving behind a widow, two unmarried sons and one unmarried daughter. The petitioner filed for compassionate employment, however this was rejected by the State authorities on the ground that the eldest son was already in a government job and thus there was no financial stress on the family, and therefore, compassionate employment of any member of the family is not permissible.
Judgment: The High Court held that the statutory condition for not granting compassionate employment was limited only to the spouse of the deceased and cannot be extended to the children of the family. Thus, it held that the son being in government employment at the time of death for his father would be irrelevant since his earning may be utilized for providing for his own family, wife and children. Thus, the Court held that in the absence of any material to show that the brother’s earnings were enough for sustenance of the entire family, then the refusal of the State authorities was not sustainable.
ARIFA TK V. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.
WP (C) No. 33177 of 2022
Kerala High Court
​​​​​​​
Facts: The petitioner was a married woman who sought employment assistance due to her deceased father who was in public employment. She contended that due to her husband losing his job, she had now become a dependent on her father and thus was entitled to employment assistance.
​
Judgment: The Court held that simply because the husband has lost his job, does not automatically imply that the daughter was now dependent on her father. The Court noted that dependency was a de facto, rather than a de jure doctrine. Considering that after marriage, the petitioner had no dependency on her father since her husband was earning, then it was untenable to imagine the dependency on her father stood restored on husband allegedly losing his job. This, the writ was disposed off without orders.
SHANTA DIGAMBAR SONAWANE V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Writ Petition No. 10813 of 2023
Bombay High Court
​
Facts: The appellant in this case was a visually-impaired woman who had inadvertently entered the wrong birth year in her application in the Railways. Despite successfully passing the exam and receiving a call for document verification, she faced rejection during document verification when she attempted to rectify the error with her updated Aadhaar Card. She received no response from the Railways to her representation seeking the reasons for rejection of her candidature. Aggrieved by such rejection, she filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
Judgment: The High Court held that minor errors stemming from a disability should not lead to serious consequences such as loss of job opportunities. Refusing to remedy such errors contravened the principle of equality and fair treatment under the Constitution and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court noted that individuals who are disables cannot be expected to stand on equal footing with other candidates and thus there should be reasonable efforts to modify the procedures to be more equitable for them. The court allowed her writ petition challenging the cancellation and directed the Railways to process her candidature within six weeks.
UNION OF INDIA V UDAYACHANDRAN P
OP (CAT) No. 300 of 2017
Kerala High Court
​
Facts: The applicant was an ex-serviceman who was denied employment in the Railways since he was unfit by the medical board due to diabetes. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a petition in the Kerala High Court.
Judgment: The Court held that a candidate cannot be denied employment merely stating that he has a disease without finding that it would impact his capacity to perform his duties. It observed that merely citing a disease is not enough to deny employment and that unfitness has to be found out with reference to the functions and duties to be discharged by the candidate. Since the medical report did not mention any reasons for disqualifying the applicant except for the reason he has diabetes, the Court directed the Railways to evaluate the medical condition to check whether it would substantially impair his abilities or not.
February 2024 International Cases
A V. SCHLUMBERGER NORGE AS (NORWAY)
HR-2023-2068-A
Norwegian Supreme Court
​
Facts: The employee alternated between fixed available periods and periods off work according to his working time arrangement. After being granted a reduction in his normal working hours, he claimed for a reduction in his available time also. The issue was whether the employee’s “available time” is to be regarded as “working hours”.
​
Judgment: The Supreme Court of Norway noted that “available time” means that he could be called to work at any time. However, during working time, the employee is placed in a situation where he or she is legally obliged to obey the instructions of his or her employer and perform an activity for the latter. Thus, since during an employee’s “available time”, he does not objectively or significantly work for his employer and is free to manage his own time, the Court concluded that the employee’s available time did not meet the conditions for being working time. Thus, the Court held that the right to reduced working hours did not give a corresponding reduction in the available time.
R V GREATER SUDBURY (CITY) (CANADA)
2023 SCC 28
Supreme Court of Canada
​
Facts: The city of Sudbury had contracted with a third-party contractor for a construction project. The negligence of the third-party contractor led to a pedestrian’s death, and so the company was convicted of breaching its duty as an employer. The municipal authorities of Sudbury claimed that they were not an employer because it had no control over the work being contracted out, and thus not vicariously liable.
​
Judgment: The Supreme Court of Canada held that the city of Sudbury was an employer of the general contractor and had breached its obligations due to the company’s negligence. It further noted that requiring control on the contractor would defeat the purpose of social justice which aimed at providing remedial public benefits. Thus, the onus was on the State to prove that they had acted with due diligence and thus court held it vicariously liable.
J.M.A.R V CA NA NEGRETA SA (EUROPEAN UNION)
Case C-631/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:53
European Court of Justice
​
Facts: The case concerned a truck driver who, due to an accident at work, could no longer perform his contractual role. The employer terminated his contract even when there was a vacant role as driver in a different department which the employee was still medically able to perform. The legal issue was whether the company was obligated to provide the employee with this position due to his work-related disability.
​
Judgment: Under the European Directive 2000/78, there is a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. European discrimination law requires that in cases of medical force majeure - when terminating the employment contract of a worker unable to perform the contractual role, the employer should at least examine whether it would be possible to continue employing the employee in a different role. Thus, if national legislation would allow a worker to be dismissed when he is disables, without the employer having to take or maintain appropriate measures, then this would run contrary to European law.