Supreme Court - High Court - Legal Breaking News | Live Law India

₹1 Lakh Compensation For Illegal Termination Of Teacher 'Shockingly Disproportionate': Rajasthan High Court Enhances It To ₹20 Lakh

Nupur Agrawal — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 07:30:40 GMT

The Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation payable to a teacher terminated illegally, from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20 lakh, observing that the amount awarded by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal was “shockingly disproportionate”.

The Court was dealing with a plea by a Hindi teacher who had served the respondent-school for around 20 years before her services were terminated in 2015 on the ground that there were no students for the subject of Hindi. The Tribunal had held the termination to be bad in law but, as the teacher had subsequently attained the age of superannuation, awarded her lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement.

The bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi took note of the fact that the teacher was a permanent employee, had rendered unblemished service for around 20 years, was not terminated for any misconduct and was not gainfully employed between the date of her termination and superannuation. The finding that her termination was bad in law had also attained finality, as the school had not challenged it.

“…keeping in view the mathematical calculation of the minimum emoluments which the petitioner would have earned during the interregnum period, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly disproportionate, and it would be just and proper to direct the respondent-School to make a lump-sum payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”

For context, the petitioner was appointed in 1995, and after around 20 years of services, was terminated by the school in 2015 on the ground that there were no students for her subject i.e. Hindi. This was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled the termination to be bad in law and awarded compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioner.

The present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the quantum of the compensation. It was argued that she should have been awarded her entire salary and benefits which she would have been entitled to had the termination not taken place.

It was submitted that not granting such benefits allowed the respondent to take advantage of their wrong and legitimized an illegal act.

After hearing the contentions, the Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal about petitioner's termination being bad in law. However, the Court observed that no one could be allowed to benefit from their own fault

“…it was equally incumbent upon the Tribunal to determine the dues payable to the petitioner, which would have met the minimum respectable yard-stick, not only in monetary terms, but also to pay back the respect and honor which the petitioner would have earned, if she would have rendered the services for the entire period…the quantification of amount to be paid to the petitioner could have been such which would have kept the respondents in a win-win position and left the petitioner high and dry and is shockingly disproportionate.”

The Court observed that the petitioner's monthly salary was Rs. 50,000/- and there was a period of more than 67 months between her termination and date of superannuation. This resulted in a figure of around Rs. 33,50,000/-.

However, the Court held that this figure itself could not be treated as determinative basis for awarding compensation. In this background, the Court took into account other factors, as elaborated above.

The Court also took into account several principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases in this regard, and taking guidance from the same, enhanced petitioner's compensation from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 20 Lakhs, payable within 2 months.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Rani Gupta v Management Committee, Maheshwari Public School and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 343

For Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Samdaria with Mr. Arihant Samdaria

For Respondents: Mr. Vinod Goyal; Mr. Bhavya Kala for Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.GC

Click Here To Read/Download Order

]]>

Once Service Rules Say PSC's Decision Is Final, Govt Cannot Inquire Into Candidate's Eligibility: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 09:36:16 GMT

The Supreme Court has held that where service rules expressly make the Public Service Commission's decision on a candidate's eligibility final, the government cannot independently reopen and exhaustively reassess the candidate's eligibility after the Commission has found the person eligible and recommended them for appointment.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a case involving one Shailendra Kumar Patel, who was selected and recommended by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the post of Registrar in a State University. Despite the recommendation, the State Government constituted its own inquiry committee, which concluded that the Appellant did not possess the requisite experience, leading to his disqualification.

The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Division and Single Bench decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had justified the State Government decision to undertake an exhaustive enquiry into the eligibility of the Appellants, who were recommended and selected by the State PSC for the Registrar post.

“…we hold that it was not open for the Government to independently re-examine the issue of eligibility and arrive at a different conclusion, based on the detailed re-examination that the candidate is not eligible, that area of consideration having been taken away statutorily from the Appointing Authority and specifically assigned to the Commission.”, the Court observed.

The Court held under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983, the Commission's decision on eligibility is final.

“Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 accords finality to the Commission's decision on a candidate's eligibility…Rule 10, however, does not exclude or curtail the authority of the Appointing Authority to undertake verification as regards eligibility, but any such decision by the Appointing Authority on eligibility must be based on a patent and demonstrable deficiency in eligibility.”, the court said.

State's enquiry to candidate's eligibility is limited to verification of documents

The Court clarified that “while the Respondent-State was competent to verify the Appellant's eligibility, it would be limited only to the verification of his documents for its satisfaction, prior to issuance of the final appointment order, and could not mean authorising it to undertake an exhaustive enquiry into the eligibility, which exercise is within the domain of the Commission.”

“We are, therefore, of the considered view that the finality attached to the Commission's determination under Rule 10 prevents the Appointing Authority from examining the substantive question of eligibility in the manner so done in the present case. The verification could be only of the genuineness of the documents or to find out any patent demonstrative deficiency in the eligibility of the Appellant, which is not the case herein. Accordingly, the report dated 28.06.2023 cannot form the basis for redetermining the Appellant's eligibility, as it has no force of law and is liable to be ignored.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, declaring the Appellant to be eligible for the post of Registrar and directing the State Government to issue a final appointment order within three weeks.

The Court also ordered that the Appellant be entitled to appointment from the date when other selected candidates were appointed, though without arrears of pay for the provisional period.

Cause Title: SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATEL VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 838

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gladson Rodrigues, Adv. Ms. Keesha Kumar, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Adithya K Roy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR Mr. Shesh Deshpandey, Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, A.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. Yashvardhan Shah, Adv. Mr. Akshit Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Kritika Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR Mr. Shesh Deshpandey, Adv.

]]>

Supreme Court Rejects Retired Professor's Claim To Be Covered By GPF Scheme Instead Of Central Provident Fund Scheme

Saima Anjum — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 12:08:37 GMT

The Supreme Court on Thursday (20.08.2026) has dismissed a petition filed by a retired Professor of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD). The petitioner sought to be covered under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF Scheme) instead of the Central Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme). The Court, however, dismissed it, holding that since the terms of his regularisation were never challenged, he could not raise the grievance after retirement, as he already accepted the benefits under the CPF Scheme.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled so while hearing the petitioner's challenge to an order passed by a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which had set aside a favourable order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) (Hyderabad).

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Research Associate with NIRD on a contractual basis in 1984, and was covered under the CPF Scheme. His services were regularised in 1985. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant Director in 1992 on a regular basis, Deputy Director in 1999 on a regular basis, and Professor on contract in 2007. His service as Professor was later regularised in 2012, as his colleague, Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma.

The petitioner retired in 2017 and was paid his retiral benefits, including NIRD's contribution to the CPF. Thereafter, he approached the CAT seeking a declaration that continuing him under CPF Scheme, instead of the GPF Scheme, was illegal and contrary to the NIRD Rules 2011 and NIRD Services Bye-laws.

Sharma had earlier obtained a favourable order from CAT in 2018 which was also upheld by the High Court. Relying on this, the CAT permitted the petitioner to be covered under the GPF Scheme.

However, NIRD challenged the CAT's order in Sharma's case before the Supreme Court in National Institute of Rural Development v Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and Ors, which held that Sharma's regularisation would operate only from the date of order and would not relate back to his appointment. The ruling was made considering the 2012 order, which itself stated that it would take effect from the date of issuance, a condition that Sharma had never challenged. Accordingly, the orders passed by the CAT and the High Court were set aside, holding that Sharma was entitled to benefits only under the CPF Scheme.

When NIRD appealed against CAT orders passed in petitioner's case, the High Court took note of the ruling in Sharma's case and found the two cases to be similar. It noted that the petitioner had approached the CAT only after his retirement, and that too after already receiving benefits under the CPF Scheme. Accordingly, CAT's order was set aside. Pursuant to this, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his case is different from that of Sharma's. Rejecting the contention, the Court held, “the petitioner's case is based on Office Order No. 98 dated 04.05.2012 by which the services of Academic Staff working on contractual basis were regularised. By the said Office Order, the services of the petitioner as Professor on contractual basis were regularised subject to various terms and conditions, which included the order of regularisation taking effect from the date of the said order as well as services being continued to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme.”

The bench also noted that, as in Sharma's case, the terms and conditions of regularisation stipulated in the Office Order had never been challenged by the petitioner at any point in time. Observing that the petitioner had accepted the terms of regularisation and raised his grievance only after retirement and after having already accepted benefits under the CPF Scheme, the Court held that “the petitioner was rightly non-suited by the High Court.”

The bench further recorded its concurrence with the reasoning in Sharma's case, which had considered in detail the effects of NIRD Rules and Bye-laws, and declined to reopen the issue. “We do not find any reason, whatsoever, to re-open the aforesaid issue at the instance of the petitioner,” it stated.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case: K Suman Chandra v Union of India & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 834

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Mr Manish Kumar Saran, Adv

For Respondents: Ms Ruchi Kohli, Adv.; Ms Vishakha, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

]]>

Government Employee Can't Be Denied Financial Benefit Merely For Lack Of Awareness Of Office Order Published Online: HP HC

Namdev Singh — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 10:30:35 GMT

A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that a government employee cannot be denied the benefit of an office order with financial implications merely because it was placed on a website, as proper publication through a reasonable mode is essential, and the employee's lack of awareness due to field posting and subsequent timely representation must be considered.

Background Facts

The respondent was working as an employee. He was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 01.03.2017. The Revised Pay Regulations of 2022 were issued by Office Order No.1 dated 12.04.2022. The respondent exercised an option for pay fixation by a factor of 2.59 on 09.05.2022 within the stipulated time.

Later, Office Order dated 13.04.2022 was issued which provided for a 15% hike with effect from the date of promotion for employees promoted between 01.01.2016 and 12.04.2022. The respondent was posted in the field, so he became aware of this Office Order only when he was posted at Headquarters in January 2023. He noticed disparity in his pay as compared to his juniors who were drawing a higher salary. He found that the pay disparity was attributable to the option exercised by his juniors in terms of Office Order dated 13.04.2022.

The respondent filed a representation dated 02.05.2024 seeking to exercise option with respect to 15% hike with effect from 01.05.2017. The representation was rejected on the ground that it was submitted at a belated stage.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court against the Single Judge order.

It was argued by the appellants that the respondent had been given sufficient time to exercise option, which was extended up to 12.10.2022. It was contended that the representation was rejected because it was submitted at a belated stage. The appellants further submitted that the extensions of time granted by Office Orders pertained to the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022. Further that sufficient opportunity was given to employees to exercise their option.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that he was not aware of Office Order dated 13.04.2022 as he was posted in the field. When he was posted at Headquarters in January 2023 then he became aware of the disparity in his pay as compared to his juniors. He submitted that the pay disparity was attributable to the option exercised by his juniors in terms of Office Order dated 13.04.2022.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Division Bench that the respondent had exercised an option for pay fixation by a factor of 2.59 within a period of two months from the issuance of Revised Pay Regulations, 2022. It was further observed that Office Orders extending time had nothing to do with Office Order dated 13.04.2022 which provided for a 15% enhancement.

It was found by the Bench that in Office Orders, conspicuous by absence was a mention of the Office Order dated 13.04.2022, whereby the option of a 15% hike with effect from the date of promotion had been granted. It was further observed that the respondent had been promoted on 01.03.2017 and therefore satisfied the condition specified in Office Order dated 13.04.2022.

It was observed that the Office Order dated 13.04.2022 was related to financial aspects and has serious implications towards the monthly salary of the respondent. Therefore, just stating that the said letter was in the public domain, i.e., on the website of the respondents, was not enough to dispense with the requirement of bringing it to the notice of the employee.

The case of Harla vs. State of Rajasthan was relied upon wherein it was held that promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential for a law to become operative. Further the judgment in Satish Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. was also relied upon by the Division Bench.

It was held by the Bench that there was no delay on the part of the respondent as the petition was only filed once the respondent became aware of Office Order dated 13.04.2022.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : HPSEBL and Anr. v. Narender Kumar

Case No. : LPA No.36 of 2026

Counsel for the Appellants : Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Aman Hansretta, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : Surender Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Sidharth Negi, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order

]]>