Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Service law

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE versus OM PRAKASH

The High Court erred in setting aside the order of premature retirement; the order was supported by material in the employee's entire service record (including pre-promotion adverse entries and punishments), compulsory retirement is not punitive and need not be a speaking order or comply with audi alteram partem in this context, and courts will not interfere where the decision is bona fide and based on record; accordingly the High Court's order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Premature retirement
  • Compulsory retirement
  • Annual confidential reports
  • Adverse remarks
  • Natural justice
  • Ccs (pension) rules, 1972
Read case analysis
Service law

SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER

The annual confidential report for 2009 was not a truthful assessment and cannot be relied upon for evaluation of the petitioner’s work and conduct; however, the Full Court’s consideration of material other than the ACR, including complaints and past record, was sufficient to justify the petitioner’s premature retirement under Rule 24 of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009, especially when read in conjunction with the Full Court Resolution dated 3.6.2013.

Source excerpt

  • Premature retirement
  • Annual confidential report
  • Service record evaluation
  • Judicial integrity
  • Administrative discretion
Read case analysis
Service law

RAJESH GUPTA versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS

Recommendation made by High Powered Review Committee was indubitably arbitrary; no material before the Committee to conclude appellant possessed assets beyond known source of income. Negligence in maintenance of records did not suggest ulterior motive. Conclusions lacked co-relation to performance and integrity records, which were 'very good', 'excellent', or 'outstanding'. Order of premature retirement suffered from vice of arbitrariness and is liable to be quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Premature retirement
  • Arbitrariness in administrative action
  • Integrity assessment
  • Jammu and kashmir civil services regulations
Read case analysis
Service law

OM PRAKASH ASATI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

An order of premature retirement cannot be set aside merely because the criterion adopted by the Screening Committee was held illegal; the impugned order must be evaluated objectively based on the employee's service record and cannot be described as arbitrary or unfair when deterioration in service and punishments are apparent.

Source excerpt

  • Premature retirement
  • Fundamental rule 56(c)
  • Screening committee
  • Confidential reports
  • Punishments in service
Read case analysis
Service law

UNION OF INDIA versus A.S. GANGOLI AND ORS.

Officers who retired prematurely for immediate absorption in PSUs/autonomous bodies constitute a distinct class, receiving special benefits including immediate re-employment and extended service. Exclusion of weightage for determination of pension for this class is a matter of government policy, not discriminatory, so long as the policy is based on valid and reasonable grounds and does not violate constitutional provisions. The High Court overlooked these aspects; its decision cannot be sustained.

Source excerpt

  • Pensionary benefits
  • Classification under article 14
  • Premature retirement
  • Public sector employment
Read case analysis
Service law

PARBODH SAGAR versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

Order of premature retirement upheld as appellant had become a liability rather than an asset due to declining service record, lack of improvement, and repeated unsuccessful litigation; employer acted within authority under Regulations in public interest; no factual support for malafides; proper procedure and jurisdiction were followed.

Source excerpt

  • Compulsory retirement
  • Unsatisfactory service records
  • Premature retirement
  • Malafides
  • Authority and power to retire
  • Annual confidential reports
Read case analysis
Service law

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA versus A.N. GUPTA AND ORS.

Sanction of the Bank's Executive Committee is not required for retirement on superannuation under Rule 26; disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued after superannuation as there is no provision for this in the Service Rules; pension and provident fund cannot be withheld unless a liability is prima facie established under Rule 20 of Provident Fund Rules.

Source excerpt

  • Pension
  • Provident fund
  • Retirement
  • Superannuation
  • Premature retirement
  • Disciplinary proceedings
Read case analysis
Service law

SHRI CHAMBA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Forfeiture of service for the purpose of increment under Punjab Police Rules, 1934, does not affect the calculation of qualifying service for pension nor serves as a break in service for the purpose of compulsory retirement. The employee's right to receive increments alone is affected, not the period of qualifying service.

Source excerpt

  • Premature retirement
  • Qualifying service for pension
  • Forfeiture of service for increment
Read case analysis
Service law

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SAYED MUZAFFAR MIR

Where no order is passed by the competent authority withholding permission to retire or retaining an employee under suspension, premature retirement takes effect after the expiry of the notice period and any removal order passed subsequently is non-est in law.

Source excerpt

  • Premature retirement
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Voluntary retirement
  • Suspension of government servant
Read case analysis
Service law

DR. L.P. AGARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

A person holding a tenure post cannot be prematurely retired by invoking the concept of superannuation or compulsory retirement, which does not apply to such appointments; the tenure endures for its fixed span, subject only to attaining maximum age or justifiable curtailment.

Source excerpt

  • Tenure appointment
  • Premature retirement
  • Superannuation
  • Recruitment rules
  • Compulsory retirement
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.