Chandrasekhar Jayanti
20 August 2026 at 10:45
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am working as a Railway employee and suffering huge loss since 2016 due to the wrong policy made by Indian Railways in 2012 during the implementation of 6th Pay Commission.
I have filed a case in CAT/Cuttack (Odisha) but unfortunately due to improper handling of the case by my Advocate itself the Hon'ble CAT bench dismissed the same without giving me any relief.
I am looking for an Advocate having good knowledge in Service matters and who can handle the case to get me justice and compensation in this matter.
If I can file a case against this Policy Rule to get justice or compensation, please suggest me where to file the case.
Please suggest in this matter. Looking for supportive reply.
gagan verma
10 August 2026 at 10:01
सदर सूच्य है कि प्रार्थी गगन वर्मा, महाराजा सुहेल देव ऑटोनॉमस स्टेट मेडिकल कॉलेज एंड महर्षि बालार्क चिकित्सालय बहराइच उत्तर प्रदेश में एसोसिएट प्रोफेसर के स्वीकृत पद पर संविदा/अस्थाई आधार पर कार्यरत था । संस्था में एसोसिएट प्रोफेसर के कुल 2 स्वीकृत पद हैं, जिनमें से एक पद अनारक्षित (General/Unreserved) तथा दूसरा पद अनुसूचित जाति (SC Category) के लिए आरक्षित है। प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति अनारक्षित (General) रोस्टर बिंदु के नियमानुसार की गई थी।प्रार्थी का कार्य0काल पूर्ण होने पर, अनारक्षित (General) रोस्टर बिंदु वाले पद को नियम विरुद्ध तरीके से पुनः SC श्रेणी में विज्ञापित कर दिया गया और प्रार्थी को सेवा से कार्यमुक्त (Relieve) कर दिया गयाप्रार्थी संस्था के संज्ञान में निम्नलिखित गंभीर प्रशासनिक व विधिक अनियमितताओं (Irregularities) को लाना चाहता है:
रोस्टर बिंदु एवं आरक्षण नियमों का प्रत्यक्ष उल्लंघन (Roster Violation):
अनुसूचित जाति (SC) के लिए आरक्षित द्वितीय पद पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी से बिना किसी वैधानिक दे-रिजर्वेशन (De-reservation) स्वीकृति के अनारक्षित (General) श्रेणी के अभ्यर्थी को नियुक्त कर दिया गया।
रोस्टर में अवैध फेरबदल (Roster Manipulation):
प्रार्थी/प्रार्थिया का कार्यकाल पूर्ण होने पर, अनारक्षित (General) रोस्टर बिंदु वाले पद को नियम विरुद्ध तरीके से पुनः SC श्रेणी में विज्ञापित कर दिया गया और प्रार्थी/प्रार्थिया को सेवा से कार्यमुक्त (Relieve) कर दिया गया। यह रोस्टर रजिस्टर के निर्धारित बिंदुओं का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन है।
माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशों का उल्लंघन (Ad-hoc to Ad-hoc Replacement):
माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh एवं Hargurpartap Singh vs. State of Punjab में प्रतिपादित विधिक सिद्धांत के अनुसार, "एक संविदा/अस्थाई कर्मचारी को दूसरे संविदा/अस्थाई कर्मचारी से तब तक प्रतिस्थापित (Replace) नहीं किया जा सकता, जब तक कि उस पद पर नियमित (Regular/Permanent) चयन न हो जाए।" वर्तमान में भी उक्त पद पर संविदा/अस्थाई आधार पर ही भर्ती प्रक्रिया निकाली गई है।
पद की वर्तमान स्थिति (Vacancy Status):
प्रार्थी/प्रार्थिया को कार्यमुक्त किए 6 माह व्यतीत हो चुके हैं, परंतु उक्त विज्ञापित पद पर अभी तक किसी भी नए अभ्यर्थी की कार्यभार ग्रहण (Joining) प्रक्रिया संपन्न नहीं हुई है तथा पद रिक्त है एवं कार्य की आवश्यकता निरंतर बनी हुई है।
Anonymous
30 July 2026 at 12:52
Respected Experts,
I am preparing for public sector and government recruitment examinations (including SBI/IBPS).
Case Background:
An FIR was registered under IPC Section 341, Section 294, Section 323, Section 506, and Section 34.
The police filed a final charge-sheet under IPC Section 294, Section 352, Section 506, and Section 34.
The entire matter was mutually compounded and disposed of via an uncontested Lok Adalat settlement. There is no pending trial, fine, or conviction against me.
My Queries:
Will this past closed case affect my final appointment or police verification for SBI/government jobs?
What is the standard legal procedure for disclosing a Lok Adalat acquittal during character attestation to ensure zero issues with my candidature?
Kindly advise.
Anonymous
24 July 2026 at 10:52
Have the offences contained in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) been classified into petty, serious, and grave offences, particularly for service jurisprudence and disciplinary proceedings? If so, are there any judicial decisions that have undertaken or recognised such a classification?
For the purposes of this query, the classification of offences under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, including the categorisation discussed in Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi), is not relevant and should be excluded from consideration.
kapil sinsinwar
21 July 2026 at 11:00
I have joined a PSU in 2010 from a central government department, i have applied through proper channel and submitted an NOC and technical resignation as well. However, after my joining in a PSU the HR refused to protect my last pay in the central government. From 2010 to 2018 i keep on writing various letters to the authorities but to no avail, finally for the very first time in 2018 HR communicated that pay protection will not be given.
Kindly enlighten me on this with orders/circulars please
Anonymous
30 June 2026 at 19:11
Can I add the qualification in service record if my last semester exam pending (academic class completed) at the time of joining govt service and passes without intimating dept.can i apply direct recruitment on the basis of that degree
Preetam Banerjee
25 June 2026 at 14:39
I have been selected for a Civil Engineering post under the Government of West Bengal and am currently awaiting appointment, subject to completion of Police Verification (PVR).
In 2021, my sister filed an IPC 306 case against me, my mother, and her former husband following a family dispute after my father's death. The case remained pending before the trial court for several years without significant progress.
Subsequently, all parties reached a mutual settlement and jointly approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. A joint compromise petition has already been filed. However, due to procedural delays, including delay in production of the Case Diary by the State and other court-related reasons, the quashing petition is still pending.
I honestly disclosed the pending case in my PVR form and did not suppress any information. My PVR report is expected to reach the department shortly and will likely mention the case as pending. I made every possible effort to have the matter resolved before completion of the PVR process, but the delay was beyond my control.
I seek legal advice on whether this pending IPC 306 case, despite the compromise and pending quashing proceedings, may affect my government appointment and what legal remedies are available to protect my candidature and secure joining.
Saurabh
07 May 2026 at 19:26
Facts of the Case:
I am seeking legal guidance on behalf of an employee who has been working on a contractual basis under a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), which is a Government of India entity registered and headquartered in Andhra Pradesh. The employee has been engaged through a series of 179-day contracts, which have been continuously renewed by the PSU. However, before every renewal, the PSU deliberately gives a one-day break, after which a fresh contract is issued. The employee has worked uninterruptedly from 16th August 2021 and the last date of the current contract is 14th May 2026, making the total period of service approximately 4 years and 9 months. Although the PSU is based in Andhra Pradesh, the employee has been physically working at a Government of India Ministry office located in New Delhi throughout the entire period of service. Despite the employee working in Delhi, the PSU deducts Rs. 200 per month as Andhra Pradesh State Professional Tax from the employee's salary.
Query 1 — Jurisdiction for Gratuity Case (Delhi or Andhra Pradesh?):
Since the PSU is registered in Andhra Pradesh but the employee has been physically working in a Central Government Ministry in New Delhi for the entire duration of service, I would like to know which authority will have jurisdiction to hear a gratuity claim — whether it will be the labour authority in Delhi or in Andhra Pradesh. Additionally, since the employer is a Central PSU under the Government of India, will the Central Government labour machinery apply, such as the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi, or will it be a state authority?
Query 2 — Whether a Gratuity Case is Maintainable:
The total period of service from 16.08.2021 to 14.05.2026 comes to approximately 4 years and 9 months, which is numerically less than the 5-year minimum required under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, the one-day break given before every contract renewal has been deliberately engineered by the PSU to prevent the employee from accumulating continuous service and claiming statutory benefits. The employee has worked for more than 240 days in each year of service. In light of the above, I would like to know whether GRATUITY CASE is maintainable.
Vasudevan
17 April 2026 at 17:02
Respected Learned Experts. I am a central government retired employee. While I was in service, I had been assiged with the duties and role of an higher officer (my next promotional cadre) from 11.04.2014 to 25.01.2017. After my retirement, I had asked for the pay benefit under FR 49(iii) for discharging the duties of the higher post. My request has been turned down by the Competent Authority in the year 2023 stating the provision of FR 49(v). I had immediately filed OA before the CAT. During the argument, the Bench has raised query on the delay of 6 years in filing the OA, It has further raised an objection that the role/duties of the higher post is only assigned and you have not been appointed on current charges to that post. The Respondent department has not raised the query of delay in its reply version. Similarly, it is the fault of the Respondent who had directed to discharge the work of the higher post without any formal appointment order to the higher post. In the above circumstances, I request all the Learned Experts kindly to suggest how to anwer the query raised by the Bench. Whether duty assigned to discharge the higher post in the absence of formal appointment order to that post is an offence committed by me. It is the directions issued by the Head Office to all the Branch Head to assign the work of the higher post who are holding next below lower post. Please guide me with your expertise know;edge as I am appearing as Party In Person before the Tribunal. My sincere thanks to one and all in the Expert Forum for your continued tireless guidance extended to me in all these days. Once again thanks in anticipation.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Regularization of period of suspension - reg.
Respected Learned Expert(s), I have filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Registry has returned ny Petition for some corrections. I had re-presented the corrected Writ Petition in the Registry on 21/08/2026. I am the Party In-Person in the Writ. I have not received any confirmation on the re-presentation from the Registry. I am residing 165 Km. away from Madras. How can I ascertain the position of my Writ Petition? Is there any way by on line? Please guide me in the matter and oblige, Thanks in anticipation to one and all in the Learned Forum.