#service conditions

CAT Jammu holds regularised ReT teachers cannot face discriminatory transfer restrictions based on initial recruitment mode; impugned repatriation orders set aside.

Bombay HC rejects non-teaching staff claim for two additional increments under GR 30/04/1984, holding the classification between teachers and non-teaching staff as reasonable under Article 226. The ruling clarifies that the policy benefits under the GR are limited to teachers only.

MP High Court stays the transfer of a Gram Panchayat Secretary after four transfers in one year, ruling that frequent transfers without replacement disrupt administrative fairness and service efficiency. The court directed the authorities to decide the pending representation within 30 days, reinforcing natural justice principles in public employment.

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a 2014 transfer order to a lecturer constituted a permanent posting, not a temporary attachment. The court set aside a subsequent relief order by the Principal under a circular, holding it illegal and violative of natural justice principles. The judgment reinforces that administrative actions must align with substantive postings, not mere procedural formalities.

The J&K High Court ruled that employees transferred from a government transport undertaking to a statutory corporation under SRO 14 of 1996 retain only pensionary benefits, not other government service perks like in-situ promotions, unless the corporation expressly adopts them. This clarifies the limits of transitional benefits for public sector employees restructured under statutory frameworks, impacting hundreds of similar cases across India.

Bombay High Court rules that transferring employees without contractual or statutory basis, altering duties, and in the face of prior litigation violates Item 3 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The judgment reinforces protections for workers against arbitrary employer actions affecting service conditions.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that while the Lokayukta may investigate corruption in public appointments, it lacks the power to declare such appointments void without issuing notice or providing a hearing. This upholds Article 311(2) and Rule 9(1) of the Nagaland Services Rules, ensuring that even alleged corrupt appointees are entitled to procedural fairness before termination. The decision reinforces that investigative bodies cannot act as adjudicators without following established service law safeguards.