#Article 14

The Jharkhand High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the state to extend the retirement age of AYUSH Medical Officers from 65 to 67 years, aligning them with allopathic doctors under Article 14. The court ordered notification within four months, preventing the petitioner's imminent superannuation at 65 and granting consequential benefits.

The Karnataka HC held that superannuation does not bar regularization where an employee served 34 years in a sanctioned post, got recommendations, and saw peers regularized, safeguarding workers’ legitimate expectation and equality rights under Article 14.

The Supreme Court held that Maharashtra Poisons Rules 18A and 18B, which mandated denaturing methanol to curb hooch tragedies, lack a proximate nexus to the objective and impose a disproportionate burden on industries, thus violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The ruling protects chemical manufacturers and traders from arbitrary state regulation while affirming the proportionality test in economic legislation.

Uttarakhand High Court ruled that halting an ongoing promotion exercise to revise service rules is arbitrary and breaches the right to be considered for promotion under existing rules. The court ordered the promotion to proceed based on the service rules in force on 31 December 2020, protecting senior Group-B officers from ad-hoc rule changes.

A cooperative society cannot be barred indefinitely without a valid show-cause notice, as such orders breach natural-justice norms and Article 14’s equality guarantee. The Allahabad High Court quashed the 2019 blacklisting, stressing that debarment must be time-bound and procedurally fair, protecting all entities subject to government blacklisting.

The Supreme Court has set aside the Commercial Court’s dismissal and referred the challenge to a larger bench, ordering a constitutional review of the 10 % pre-deposit security clause in arbitration agreements. The referral signals that such clauses may breach Article 14’s equality guarantee and conflict with Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, impacting contractors and public-sector projects.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that candidates from reserved categories who scored above the general cut-off and did not claim any reservation benefit must be considered for unreserved posts even if their reservation certificates are invalid. This extends merit-based appointment to all eligible aspirants, irrespective of certificate validity.

Punjab High Court ordered the state to implement the 6th Pay Commission’s dearness allowance and dearness relief on the central pattern and declared the age-tiered liquidation plan unconstitutional under Article 14, directing immediate payment of all arrears with interest. The ruling affects all Punjab government employees awaiting these allowances.

A two-year unjustified hold on a No-Objection Certificate was deemed malice in law, breaching Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, and the petition was dismissed after the NOC was finally granted. This ruling warns administrative authorities that arbitrary delays can be struck down as unconstitutional, affecting all applicants seeking statutory clearances.

The Odisha High Court ordered the state to execute OCL Iron & Steels Ltd.’s mining lease within eight weeks, finding that the selective refusal breached Article 14’s equality guarantee. This mandates uniform treatment for all applicants under the MMDR Act, affecting pending lease approvals across the state.

MP High Court rules indefinite freezing of an entire bank account for a single disputed transaction of Rs. 20,000 violates Articles 14 and 21. Directs banks to restrict freezes to the disputed amount only, protecting innocent account holders from disproportionate hardship.

Allahabad HC quashed differential pay scales post-cadre merger, affirming the 'equal pay for equal work' principle under Articles 14 and 16. The ruling mandates uniform pay scales for employees performing identical roles, regardless of pre-merger designations.

Bombay HC rules Maharashtra government must pay minimum pay scales to employees of government-aided hostels under Article 14, citing State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh. The ruling mandates compliance with GRs dated 5 Feb 2000 and 3 Jun 2008 within eight weeks, ensuring parity with private hostel staff.

Supreme Court rules that denying refund of premium paid for unutilized Floor Space Index (FSI) is arbitrary and violates Article 14, directing refund of ₹27.41 lakh with 7% interest after deducting 10% administrative charges. The judgment reinforces that state actions under Development Control Regulations must align with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness, impacting property developers and urban planning authorities.

Andhra Pradesh High Court dismisses writ petitions challenging tender conditions for Balamrutham supply, reinforcing that courts cannot substitute administrative discretion with judicial wisdom unless arbitrariness is proven. The ruling clarifies the scope of judicial review in public procurement under Article 14, impacting contractors and government agencies alike.