The Kalamkar

2 important decisions of Supreme Court regarding government and private employees

If it is known that an FIR has been registered against an employee while on the job, can he be fired? Increment given to an employee after his retirement can be recovered on the ground that it was given to him by mistake. A big decision has been given by the Supreme Court in this regard. Let us know about it in detail.


The Kalamkar News (New Delhi).  In the last two days, two major decisions came from the Supreme Court which are related to the rights of employees. 

There are many employees who keep making rounds of the courts in such cases. The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that hiding any information in a case, giving false information and not giving information about FIR (Suppression of Criminal Case) does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily dismiss the employee. 

A day earlier, in another case, the Supreme Court said that if additional payment or increment is made to an employee by mistake, then after his retirement, recovery cannot be made from him on the basis that it happened due to some mistake. What are the two decisions of the Supreme Court and what will be its impact?

When the matter of FIR came to light during training

A petition filed by Pawan Kumar was heard in the Supreme Court. Pawan was selected for the post of constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). 

When Pawan's training started, he was removed from the order on the grounds that the candidate did not disclose that an FIR had been registered against him. 

The Supreme Court said that a person who has suppressed information or made a false declaration has no right to demand his retention in service but at least he should not be treated arbitrarily.

The Supreme Court said that at the time of the verification form filled by the appellant, a criminal case was already registered against him, the complainant had filed his affidavit that the complaint on which the FIR was lodged was due to a misunderstanding. 

The bench said that the order of removal from service is not appropriate and the subsequent decision passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court is not correct and deserves to be quashed.

What is the meaning of notice to employee after 24 years?

The Supreme Court on Monday gave its verdict in the case of a teacher from Kerala. The case was that the teacher took study leave in the year 1973 but the period of that leave was not considered while giving him increment. After 24 years, a notice was issued to him in 1997 and after his retirement in 1999, recovery proceedings were initiated against him. 

The teachers went to the High Court against this but did not get any relief and then reached the Supreme Court. Referring to its earlier judgments, the Supreme Court said that a government servant, especially one in the lower ranks of the service, shall spend whatever amount he receives for the maintenance of his family.