service jurisprudence - The Legal Chamber

No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank

26Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank

The Supreme Court held that pay fixation of re-employed ex-servicemen is governed solely by government guidelines, which banks cannot override. It ruled that reducing pay without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such an administrative action legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: After retiring from the Indian Navy, the appellants were re-employed by Punjab National Bank between 2015-2017 as Single Window Operators. Their initial pay was fixed at a higher amount, with four appellants receiving ₹40,710 and one receiving ₹34,160. However, following a 2018 clarification from the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) that capped the maximum basic pay for ex-servicemen at ₹31,540, the bank issued a circular and subsequently reduced the appella...

Arbitrary Recruitment? Supreme Court Slams Punjab for Ignoring UGC & PSC Norms

The Supreme Court ruled that the Punjab government's recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians violated constitutional and statutory norms. The Court held that the State failed to consult the Punjab Public Service Commission as mandated under Article 320(3)(a) and disregarded UGC Regulations 2010, which were binding. The retrospective amendment to exclude these posts from the Commission’s purview was deemed illegal. The selection process, based solely on a written test without interviews or academic evaluation, was found arbitrary under Article 14. The Court quashed the appointments, directing fresh recruitment in compliance with UGC Regulations 2018. Facts Of The Case: In January 2021, the Punjab government sent requisitions to the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) to fil...

Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulation 19 of the Union Bank of India Officers’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 mandates mandatory consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before issuing a charge sheet in disciplinary cases involving a vigilance angle. The Bank’s failure to await the CVC’s first-stage advice rendered the proceedings arbitrary and illegal, warranting quashing of the charge sheet. The Court clarified that once the Bank acknowledges a vigilance angle and seeks CVC input, it cannot unilaterally proceed without considering the advice, upholding procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. No back wages were granted, but retiral benefits were ordered to be released. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, A.M. Kulshrestha, a Deputy General Manager at Unio...