1. Maj Gen HM Singh, VSM v. Union of India and ANR. [Civil appeal no. 192 of 2014 (arising of SLP (c ) no. 2008 of 2010)]
Service Law- Eligible candidates have a fundamental right to be considered for promotion against the vacancy and promoted if suitable- Facts are that whether the non-consideration of Maj Gen Singh’s claim would “violate the fundamental rights vested in him under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”. Answering its query in affirmative, with a rider that it was subject to authorities being desirous of filling the vacancy of a Lt Gen’s post when it became available on Jan 1, 2007, the court said that in the case of Maj Gen Singh, the authorities were desirous of filling up the said vacancy in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The court rejected the government’s plea that at the time of considering Maj.Gen. Singh for promotion, he was on extension of service. Granting promotion to Maj Gen Singh as Lt. Gen. from the date due to him, the court said that he would be treated as being on service till Feb 28, 2009 when he would have attained the age of 60 years, and would be entitled to “all monetary benefits which would have been due to him, on account of his promotion to the rank of Lt Gen till his retirement on superannuation, as also, to revised retirement benefits which would have accrued to him on account of such promotion”.-The court also directed the government to release the monetary benefits to Maj Gen Singh within three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of its judgment.
2. Cheel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank Pali & Ors. [ Civil appeal no. 6018 of 2014 (arsing out of SLP © no. 29807 of 2012)]
Service Law- Unauthorised absence on medical negligence- Facts are such that the present appellant working with respondent bank as a clerk-cum-cashier was on leave without prior permission or medical certificate for 10 and half months. Post which he submitted his medical certificate stating his serious illness- Disciplinary authority dismissed the Appellant from his services- Single bench High Court quashed the order of dismissal and ordered re-in statement- division bench in appeal in part allowed the decision of the single bench high court, but quashed the order of reinstatement- Held, the Appellant had submitted his medical certificate, and no where was the validity of the certificate questioned, if the same is believed to be true the Appellant could not have been dismissed – Appeal allowed.
3. Director General ESIC & Anr. Puroshottam Malani [ civil appeal no. 4611 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (c) no. 1551 of 2007)]
Service Law- Withdrawal of voluntary retirement- In the present case the respondent working as a manager gave a voluntary retirement with a three months notice- withdrew the notice prior to last day of reliever- the authorities rejected his withdrawal of voluntary retirement- the High Court reversed the order and ordered the withdrawal of voluntary retirement should have been accepted- Held, that the general rule is in case the employee withdraws the voluntary retirement the same is to be entertained when given along with reasons, In this case no reasons were given secondly the respondent had received the benefits of pension etc. and had en-cashed the same – Employment with the government is not a contract and in this case without any valid reason for withdrawal the same could not have been accepted. Order of High Court quashed.
4. Rohtas Bhankhar & Others v. Union of India [Civil appeal no. 6046- 6047 of 2004]
Service law- Regarding lowering of qualifying marks lowering the standard for evaluation for SC/ST candidates for reservation in promotion to be declared as legal- Held, that the principle of allowing lowering of qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates is is a sound principle and the same not be changed- Results of the candidates be calculated again after allowing them the benefit.
5. V.S Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn. [Civil Appeal no. 412 of 2015 (arising out of SLP (c) no. 5236/ 2014]
Service Law- Once the labour court has exercised its discretion judiciously the High court can interfere with the award only if it is satisfied that the award of the labour court has any fundamental flaw- Appellant driver was charged with misconduct for false transfer certificate after 5 years of service- Enquiry was held and the Appellant was found guilty- dismissed from service- Labour court ordered the re-instatement of the Appellant- High court reversed the order of the Labour Court- Held, that the order of the Labour court was sound and judicious and the High Court should avoid interference with the award of the labour court – Ordered re-instatment of the appellant as he was of 45 years of age and could not have looked for alternative employment also that a time of 14 years had lapsed while the enquiry was being conducted and lastly on the ground that other employees with similar misconduct were given punishment of a lesser degree.