#Government Service Rules

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that service rendered as a daily wager cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension under the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The ruling impacts daily wagers seeking pension benefits, reinforcing the statutory exclusion of such service periods.

MP High Court Gwalior holds that a 25-year delay in seeking compassionate appointment extinguishes the claim, as the doctrine's core objective-immediate financial relief-is defeated by prolonged inaction. The ruling underscores that representations made decades later cannot revive entitlement, even if prior applications were unaddressed.

The J&K High Court ruled that recovering excess pay from pension after retirement is illegal under J&K Civil Service Regulations, as the 24-month recovery limit applies. The court emphasized that rescinding benefits without a prior hearing violates principles of natural justice, setting a precedent for protecting retiral dues of government employees.

The Sikkim High Court ruled that suspension following a criminal conviction involving moral turpitude cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension, even if subsistence allowance was paid beyond superannuation. This sets a strict precedent for public servants in Sikkim: disciplinary suspension tied to moral turpitude forfeits pension accrual, regardless of length of service or continued financial support.

Madhya Pradesh High Court affirms that Medical Officers under the MP Public Health Service Rules are entitled to serve until 65 years as per the 2007 Amendment, directing authorities to process retiral dues within 60 days. The ruling clarifies the category of appointment and ensures consequential benefits for officers who continued service beyond the previous retirement age.

Tripura High Court rules that the 2011 amendment to Rule 15 of the Tripura Government Vehicles Drivers Service Rules, 1979, elevates driver posts to Group-C status, entitling employees to the corresponding pay scale for three years preceding the writ filing. The judgment overrides conflicting administrative orders, reinforcing statutory compliance over executive discretion in pay scale classification.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that administrative authorities must proactively advise families of deceased government employees on compassionate appointment procedures under the 2016 notification. Ignorance of formalities due to official inaction cannot justify rejection of welfare benefits, reinforcing that procedural fairness is not optional but a mandatory duty under service law.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that eligibility for compassionate appointment under the West Bengal Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2013, is determined by the employee's remaining service tenure on the date of medical incapacitation, not the date of retirement application. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the Scheme mandates at least two years of service left at the time of medical declaration for eligibility.

Punjab & Haryana High Court dismisses petitions seeking date of birth alteration after 32 years, ruling that corrections under Fundamental Rules must be sought within five years of appointment. The court held that unchallenged service records govern retirement age, barring belated claims even if supported by school certificates.

Gujarat High Court rules that AICTE guidelines prevail over state leave rules, ensuring faculty members on study leave receive full salary without recovery. The judgment quashes recovery orders and directs payment of arrears with 6% interest by 31 May 2026, reinforcing central regulatory supremacy in service matters.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that recovery of excess pension beyond five years post-retirement violates the Rafiq Masih precedent, reinforcing protections for retired government servants against arbitrary financial demands. The judgment mandates strict adherence to pension finalization timelines under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that service rendered under Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam does not count toward eligibility for Kramonnati Vetanmaan under School Education Department circulars.

CAT Allahabad holds that mere negligence without dishonest intent or financial loss cannot justify major penalty; sets precedent for disciplinary proceedings against government servants.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that family pension is exclusively due to the first legally wedded wife when second marriage is contracted without prior government permission under J&K Conduct Rules.