#administrative policy

The Bombay High Court ruled that a retired employee’s retiral benefits cannot be denied merely because his Scheduled Tribe certificate was invalidated after service - especially when he was never served the cancellation order. This upholds natural justice in administrative actions and ensures that procedural lapses by the state do not deprive retirees of statutorily guaranteed benefits under Government Resolution 14.12.2022.

Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench mandates the Maharashtra State Agricultural Prices Commission to actively recommend the difference between Central and State Minimum Support Prices (MSP) under GR 23/04/2015, transforming its advisory role into a binding obligation. This ruling ensures farmers receive the higher MSP, addressing systemic gaps in agricultural pricing policies and holding state bodies accountable for implementation.

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the state’s own 1980 policy requiring administrative authorities to consider the convenience of government employees in their last year of service is binding and must be applied with reasoned justification. This sets a critical precedent for medical officers and other service personnel facing arbitrary transfers near retirement, reinforcing natural justice in administrative postings.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a Patwari with over 30 years of service is entitled to the third time-bound pay scale under state circulars, affirming legitimate expectation and binding precedent from prior rulings. This decision mandates prompt adjudication of such claims and sets a clear standard for equitable pay progression in state-level revenue service roles.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) is strictly liable for fatal electrocution accidents on its public network under its 2019 policy, mandating compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The ruling underscores that electricity distribution is a hazardous activity, making UHBVN liable regardless of fault or the cause of the accident.

Rajasthan High Court rules that contempt proceedings cannot compel compliance with judicial directions if a subsequent administrative policy renders them unenforceable. The ruling underscores that post availability is a binding precondition for absorption orders, limiting judicial overreach in public employment disputes.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that descendants or sub-clans have no entitlement to landownership-based government appointments under the 2018 notification, which restricts such benefits to the first appointee. The Court also dismissed procedural challenges, reinforcing that non-advertisement of vacancies does not invalidate appointments unless specifically pleaded.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that landowners are entitled to 15% developed land as compensation under state policy if monetary payment remains unpaid, regardless of delay. The judgment reinforces promissory estoppel, holding that mere deposit of funds does not constitute valid payment under the Land Acquisition Act.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that retirees cannot claim enhanced gratuity if they retired before the cut-off date specified in state circulars, even if pension arrears were paid. The judgment reinforces that administrative policies with explicit temporal conditions prevail over retrospective claims, impacting public sector retirees seeking retiral benefits.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that compassionate appointment applications must be filed within seven years of the employee's death or within one year of a minor turning major, as per policy clauses 3.2 and 3.3. Delayed applications, even if posts remain vacant, are ineligible for consideration, reinforcing strict adherence to statutory timelines in government service laws.

CAT holds that merger of government cadres is a policy decision beyond judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of natural justice.

Central Administrative Tribunal upholds policy restricting police absorption to Government ITI diploma holders, rejecting claims of arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16.