#Administrative Tribunal

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings marred by undue delay and insufficient evidence cannot sustain punitive actions like pension cuts. The Court also clarified that notional promotion is not an automatic entitlement, even if the punishment order is set aside, reinforcing principles of natural justice in service law.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that retirement benefits, including full pension, must be released upon superannuation even if an employee is under suspension due to an FIR, unless formal departmental or judicial proceedings are actively pending at the time of retirement. This protects public servants from indefinite financial penalties based on unproven allegations and reinforces procedural fairness in service law.

The Karnataka High Court imposed Rs.25,000 costs on the Revenue Department for four years of inaction in enforcing a tribunal order that set aside disciplinary proceedings, affirming that delay in implementing judicial directives constitutes disobedience. This ruling strengthens administrative accountability under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and signals that public bodies cannot evade compliance through procedural inertia.

Karnataka High Court stayed the suspension of a police inspector, ruling that suspension based on unrelated suicide allegations-without prima facie evidence of bribery-is legally unsustainable. The judgment reinforces that administrative actions must align with established service law principles to avoid arbitrariness.

CAT Jammu rules that denying promotion benefits to a senior employee while granting them to a junior in identical circumstances violates constitutional guarantees of equality. The tribunal directs the respondents to extend the same benefits to the applicant as granted to respondent No. 5, ensuring parity in compassionate appointments under service law.

CAT Allahabad rules that compassionate appointment under DoPT OM 16.01.2013 cannot be denied based on unproven criminal allegations or family objections. The tribunal emphasizes financial dependency as the primary criterion, overriding procedural disputes where no conviction exists.

CAT Jammu reinforces that mere dissatisfaction with recruitment outcomes is insufficient to challenge selections. Unsuccessful candidates must demonstrate concrete procedural illegality or arbitrariness to assail the process, safeguarding merit-based appointments from frivolous litigation.

CAT Allahabad upholds Railway Recruitment Board's selection process, ruling that candidates who do not opt for higher-preference posts lose claim to appointment despite meeting merit criteria. The decision clarifies that post preferences under CEN No. 03/2015 prevail over raw scores, impacting thousands of government job aspirants.

CAT Allahabad holds that contractual termination carrying stigmatic implications violates principles of natural justice, even if the contract permits termination without cause. The ruling mandates an opportunity for the employee to respond before adverse action, reinforcing procedural fairness in employment disputes under service law.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the cause of action for seniority in government service emerges solely at the time of regularisation, not at the date of initial appointment or engagement. This clarifies a critical legal threshold for hundreds of daily wage and contractual employees seeking backdated seniority and promotional benefits, overturning dismissal on limitation grounds and mandating fresh adjudication under binding precedent.

Gauhati High Court rules that railway officers cannot claim House Rent Allowance (HRA) if they fail to apply for available government quarters of their entitled class, even after vacating official accommodation. The court also ordered refund of any HRA already paid under such circumstances, reinforcing strict compliance with administrative circulars.

CAT Patna sets aside a ₹2,02,549 pension recovery order issued without a show cause notice, reinforcing that administrative actions must comply with audi alteram partem. The tribunal directed a full refund within 90 days, underscoring that procedural fairness is non-negotiable even in financial recoveries against retired employees.

CAT remanded a KVS transfer order, ruling that serious medical conditions like Crohn’s disease and TB must be empathetically considered even if not explicitly listed in the policy. The tribunal emphasized administrative justice requires weighing individual hardships beyond rigid policy exclusions, impacting service law and employment rights.

CAT Allahabad set aside the removal of a railway employee presumed dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, directing payment of family pension, arrears, and reconsideration of compassionate appointment for the son. The ruling underscores that disciplinary actions cannot proceed without first establishing legal presumption of death, ensuring due process for dependents.

CAT Ahmedabad holds that employers cannot exclude service periods from pension calculations due to unavailable records, placing the onus on them to maintain accurate service documentation. The ruling reinforces that pension entitlements cannot be denied on procedural grounds, ensuring protection for retired employees under service law.