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

PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

The High Court's order directing appointment but stating that seniority be reckoned from the date of appointment stands; however because the appellants' right to appointment accrued from the High Court order dated 02.05.2012 and the State delayed implementation, the appellants must be placed senior to judicial officers appointed after that order on 10.07.2012.

Source excerpt

  • Seniority
  • Appointment delay
  • Seniority list
  • Right to appointment
Read case analysis
Service law

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ANR. versus K.C. DEVAKI

Because the respondent's change of cadre was effected at her request on medical grounds and she gave written consent to be placed below the last person in the transferred post (recorded in the order dated 19.04.1989), her seniority in the First Division Assistant cadre must be reckoned from 19.04.1989 in accordance with Rule 16 of the 1977 Recruitment Rules and Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules; the Tribunal and High Court were therefore wrong to direct seniority from 05.01.1979.

Source excerpt

  • Seniority
  • Transfer
  • Change of cadre
  • Transfer on medical grounds
  • Transfer in public interest
  • Transfer at the request of the officer
Read case analysis
Service law

SAJITHABAI AND ORS. versus THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND ORS.

The Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and the Special Rules, 1960 govern separate services; Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960 applies to officers once they hold the post of Assistant Engineer and confers on such officers the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota for promotion (provided they possess the requisite qualification), irrespective of how they were appointed to the post; therefore the lower courts' interpretation that those promoted under the diploma quota cannot switch to the degree quota was incorrect and the impugned judgments were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Promotion
  • Seniority
  • Assistant engineer
  • Promotion quota
  • Option to migrate between degree and diploma quota
  • Kerala public health engineering service special rules, 1960
Read case analysis
Service law

P. RAMMOHAN RAO versus K. SRINIVAS AND ORS. ETC.

The appellants’ uninterrupted officiating service from 1990 until regularisation in 2005 falls under Proposition (B) of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association and therefore must be counted for seniority; the State was within its rule-making power to issue G.O.M. No.262 (17.06.2006) modifying G.O.M. No.234 and functus officio does not bar such executive reconsideration; prior hearing of all affected regular appointees was not required for this policy decision. Consequently the appellants are entitled to seniority above the 1997 APPSC-selected batch and the High Court order quashin…

Source excerpt

  • Seniority
  • Counting of officiating service
  • Regularisation of service
  • Functus officio
  • Natural justice
  • Rule-making power
Read case analysis
Judiciary

DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS. versus THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Since the appellants had qualified the prescribed suitability test (minimum 40 marks), they could not be denied promotion merely because their placement in a merit list was lower; they are entitled to notional promotion from the date other officers on the select list were appointed and to consequential service benefits (seniority, increments, notional pay fixation) but not back wages.

Source excerpt

  • Promotion
  • Civil judges (senior division)
  • Jharkhand superior judicial service
  • Suitability test
  • Merit-cum-seniority
  • Notional promotion
Read case analysis
Service law

GEETHA V.M. & ORS. versus RETHNASENAN K. & ORS.

Where employees of DHS were moved to DME by way of absorption pursuant to a government policy abolishing dual control and in administrative exigency, such movement is an incidence of service (absorption) and not a transfer 'on request' within the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules; consequently the proviso does not apply and the seniority of absorbed employees must be maintained as per Rule 27(a) and Rule 27(c) (i.e., reckoned from the date of first appointment or first effective advice as appropriate).

Source excerpt

  • Transfer
  • Absorption
  • Seniority
  • Inter-se seniority
  • Option versus request
Read case analysis
Service law

V. VINCENT VELANKANNI versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The OFB Government Order dated 04.08.2015, which revived OM dated 04.11.1992, cannot be applied retrospectively because it substantively modified the position then prevailing (OFB GO dated 24.12.2002) and its operation is expressly "henceforth"; therefore seniority for the cadre at the relevant time is to be determined in accordance with SRO No.185 of 1994 and OFB GO dated 24.12.2002 (i.e. counted from date of promotion/upgradation to the skilled grade), and the appellant is not entitled to have seniority reckoned from the date of initial induction.

Source excerpt

  • Promotion
  • Seniority
  • Probation
  • Trade test
  • Retrospective effect
  • Seniority fixation
Read case analysis
Service law

MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS. versus M. MOANUNGBA & ORS.

Seniority in the Junior Engineer cadre must be determined by the date on which individuals became members of that cadre from their respective sources; persons whose posts were upgraded to Junior Engineer only became members of the cadre upon the upgradation (11.10.2007) and therefore cannot be placed senior to Junior Engineers directly recruited and appointed on 01.05.2003; accordingly the seniority list dated 26.03.2018 is correct and must be upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Seniority
  • Inter-se seniority
  • Direct recruitment
  • Upgradation of posts
  • Seniority list
  • Regularization
Read case analysis
Service law

RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR versus DR. ZABAR SINGH SOLANKI AND ORS.

Re-designation of Research Assistants as Lecturers/Assistant Professors confers parity of pay but does not amount to regular appointment; since the CAS explicitly required completion of eight years after regular appointment, re-designated incumbents who were not regular appointees are not entitled to CAS benefits, and ad-hoc service prior to regular appointment shall not be counted for CAS eligibility as per State Government clarification.

Source excerpt

  • Re-designation
  • Regular appointment
  • Ad-hoc service
  • Career advancement scheme
  • Entitlement to benefits under career advancement scheme
  • Seniority
Read case analysis
Service law

BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS versus DHARAMDEO DAS

The appeal is allowed on the ground that promotion takes effect from the date it is granted and not from the date a vacancy arises; completion of Kal Awadhi only makes an employee eligible to be considered and does not create a vested right to retrospective promotion absent express rule; administrative reduction in sanctioned posts was a valid administrative exigency and the Division Bench erred in directing retrospective promotion to 29.7.1997.

Source excerpt

  • Promotion
  • Right to be considered for promotion
  • Retrospective promotion
  • Seniority
  • Equality of opportunity
  • Reservation (scheduled caste)
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.