Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

26 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

S.D. JAYAPRAKASH AND ORS. ETC.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 59429 April 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellants were appointed as Data Entry Operators on a contractual basis between 1996 and 1999 and were regularised in 2015. They sought to have their contractual service counted for pension benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Karnataka High C

BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2016 INSC 62026 August 2016Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a retired CRPF Commandant, was alleged to have been involved in the loss of arms and the supply of contraband ganja while in service. Earlier disciplinary proceedings were quashed by the High Court, but the authority later issued fresh memoranda of charges in 2008 and 2009 after obtaining presidential sa

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMADHU E.V. & ANR.

2012 INSC 18526 April 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners were constables of the Border Security Force (BSF) who resigned after completing ten years of service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, and were initially told they would be entitled to pension on compassionate grounds. The Government later informed them that no pension would be payable, leading the

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusBALWAN SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 26726 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) allowed its ex‑employees to retire under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in 1993. The respondents, who had taken periods of unauthorised absence/leave without pay, were denied pension benefits because those periods were excluded from qualifying service. The Supreme Court held t

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusDILEEP KUMAR SINGH

2015 INSC 17126 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Dileep Kumar Singh, a CRPF Assistant Commandant, suffered a permanent spinal injury while on duty and was medically declared 100% incapacitated. He was subsequently relieved from service in July 2011 and challenged the relief under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Partic

NISHA PRIYA BHATIAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2020 INSC 35524 April 2020Disposed off

Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia, a Director in the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), complained of sexual harassment against senior officers, after which her identity was publicly disclosed and she attempted suicide. The government declared her "exposed" and "unemployable" and ordered her compulsory retirement under Rule 135 o

RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 62122 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were employed as Junior Accountant, Accountant, Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk to manage the Special Frontier Force's Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund, claimed pensionary benefits under the 6th Central Pay Commission and the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008. Their service, sp

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2023 INSC 56419 May 2023Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) concerning pay, pension, gratuity, retirement age and related service conditions for the district judiciary. The petitioners, All India Judges Association, sought uniform designations, a pay matrix with a 2.81 multipli

MUNISH KUMARversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 39819 May 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought a compassionate appointment after his father, a government employee, died while in service on 16 June 2004. The father had applied for retirement on medical grounds before his death, but the retirement was approved only after his death, with effect from an earlier date. The State rejected the appel

SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKARversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2023 INSC 4917 January 2023Dismissed

Shridhar Chimurkar, a retired government superintendent, died in 1994 leaving a widow, Maya Motghare, who adopted Sri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar in 1996, two years after the death. The appellant sought family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, but the government rejected the claim on the ground

GOVERNMENT OF NCT (DELHI) AND ANOTHERversusK. SRIVATSAN

2014 INSC 100716 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

K. Srivatsan, a government employee on deputation to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was suspended on 3 December 2007, the suspension was revoked, and he was again suspended on 29 February 2008, remaining under suspension until his superannuation on 30 June 2008. After retirement, the CBI investigated alleged finan

SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 49115 April 2025Dismissed

The petitioners, retired officers of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation, challenged the denial of pension benefits under the 1999 corporate sector pension scheme, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood, which upheld a cut‑off date of 02‑12‑2004, was per

P. BANDOPADHYA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 39015 March 2019

The appellants were employees of the Overseas Communications Service (OCS) which was converted into Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) in 1986. They exercised the option to be absorbed into VSNL on 2 January 1990 and also chose to retain pension benefits under Central Government rules, despite having less than ten yea

HARSH KUMAR SHARMA, IFSversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2016 INSC 113014 December 2016Disposed off

Harsh Kumar Sharma, an IFS officer, faced criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged irregularities in a golf‑course project in a forest area. While his promotion to Chief Conservator of Forests was considered by the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC), the DPC kept his assessment in a

B. S. HARI COMMANDANTversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 36913 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

B.S. Hari, a Commandant in the Border Security Force, was convicted by a General Security Force Court for allegedly permitting the smuggling of acetic anhydride across the India‑Pakistan border and was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine and dismissal from service. The conviction rested mainly on the

ALL MANIPUR PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION BY ITS SECRETARYversusTHE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 74811 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Manipur issued an office memorandum in 1999 revising pension benefits, granting a higher percentage to employees who retired on or after 1 January 1996 and a lower percentage to those who retired earlier. All Manipur Pensioners Association challenged this classification as violative of Articles 14 and 16 o

MAHINDER DUTT SHARMAversusU.0.1. & ORS.

2014 INSC 26711 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Mahinder Dutt Sharma, a police constable, was dismissed for a 320‑day unauthorized and willful absence. After serving 24 years with commendations, he sought compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, citing family deaths, his wife's cancer and his own ill‑health. The Depu

ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS)versusDELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

2025 INSC 14049 December 2025Case Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar Dabas, a conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation since 1985, resigned on 7 August 2014 and his resignation was accepted on 19 September 2014; a subsequent request to withdraw the resignation was denied. The deceased sought pension, gratuity and leave encashment for his legal heirs, but the Tribunal and t

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusGANDIBA BEHERA

2019 INSC 12268 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, Union of India and others, challenged several High Court judgments that had allowed Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) who were later regularised as Group D or other regular postal employees to count their GDS service towards the ten‑year qualifying service required for pension under the Central Civil Services (P

NARESH KUMARversusDEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3908 July 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a former Indian Air Force air corporal who later served with the Department of Atomic Energy and Nuclear Power Corporation, had elected a pro‑rata pension on retirement and subsequently sought to change his option to a combined civil‑military pension. His multiple representations to the authorities from

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCEversusOM PRAKASH

2022 INSC 1474 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Head Constable Om Prakash was prematurely retired after completing 30 years of service under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Delhi High Court set aside the retirement order, holding that penalties and adverse remarks prior to his promo

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusDR. O. P. NIJHAWAN & ORS.

2019 INSC 43 January 2019Dismissed

The case concerned scientists employed in DRDO, DAE and DOS who were granted a special pay of Rs 2,000 (effective from 1 Jan 1996) and Rs 4,000 (effective from 1 Jan 2006). The Union of India challenged the inclusion of this special pay in the definition of "pay" for computing pension under Fundamental Rule 9(21)(a)(i)

BHIKHANI DEVI AND ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 6121 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, former night‑guard casual labourers of the Department of Posts, were granted "temporary status" under the 1991 Casual Labourers Scheme and later treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees after three years of service, but were never formally regularised. They sought pension and family‑pension ben

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search