#Government Employees

The HP HC rejected the State’s laches defence, holding that delay did not bar the petitioners’ right to challenge the Recruitment Act or seek relief grounded in their contractual service.

The Punjab & Haryana HC ordered Rs 72,500 plus interest for a pensioner’s emergency surgery at a non-empaneled hospital, holding it is reimbursable under the Central Government Health Scheme. The ruling confirms that an emergency certificate alone triggers CGHS liability, speeding up claim disposal for government staff and retirees.

Karnataka High Court invokes Article 226 to enforce a strict 4-month timeline for finalizing the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers, emphasizing that arbitrary delays by public employers violate constitutional rights. The ruling mandates promotions based on merit-cum-seniority, setting a precedent for government employees facing similar procedural lapses.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that permanently classified employees must receive the minimum revised pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission, effective January 1, 2016, affirming their legal parity with regular government servants. This decision closes a critical gap in service benefits and sets a binding precedent for similar classifications across state departments.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even when a government employee is acquitted in a criminal case, the departmental enquiry can proceed independently on the same facts, as the standards of proof differ - criminal acquittal under beyond reasonable doubt does not equate to exoneration under preponderance of probabilities. This reaffirms that public service discipline remains a separate sphere, affecting all state employees facing parallel proceedings.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that Zilla Parishad employees who serve six months or more in a financial year are entitled to a notional annual increment effective July 1, even if they retire before that date. This directly impacts pension calculations and entitles them to arrears, reinforcing the principle that service duration, not retirement timing, triggers incremental benefits under the 6th Pay Commission framework.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that decades of uninterrupted government service cannot be nullified by the state’s own failure to preserve service records. This decision protects retired employees from punitive administrative negligence, affirming that procedural lapses by the employer cannot override substantive rights earned through long-term public service.

CAT Jammu bench invokes Supreme Court precedent to mandate pay scale regularisation for power employees under SRO 149 of 1973, directing the UT of J&K to consider their representation within six weeks. The ruling reinforces the legal obligation of administrative authorities to align employee pay scales with established judicial directives, impacting service law compliance for government employees.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that ad hoc service prior to regularization must be included when calculating qualifying service for pension, reinforcing the precedent set in Nand Lal. This decision directly impacts thousands of government employees whose prior contractual or temporary service was previously excluded, ensuring fair pension benefits based on total tenure.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a government employee transferred to an autonomous institution retains pensionary benefits under the 2004 Rules, holding the State liable for dues. The judgment clarifies service continuity for employees transitioning from government to autonomous bodies, ensuring pension rights remain intact.

Tripura High Court rules that a valid permanent disability certificate issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is sufficient to claim family pension, rejecting administrative delays that deny statutory rights. The judgment reinforces that bureaucratic hurdles cannot override legal entitlements of mentally disabled dependents.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that uncommunicated adverse ACR entries cannot be the sole basis for compulsory retirement; due process and service record must be considered.

Rajasthan High Court directs payment of salary arrears, leave encashment, gratuity and PF with 12% interest to retired employee, affirming statutory entitlements under Revised Pay Scales Rules.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that parity in pay fixation under Articles 14 and 16 requires identical service conditions, not mere similarity in designation.

High Court of Telangana mandates release of retirement benefits within six weeks; delays attract 10% p.a. interest, reinforcing state's fiduciary duty to retirees.