Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963

6 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

ISHWAR CHAND JAINversusHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AND ANOTHER

1988 INSC 16926 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge on a two‑year probation, was dismissed after the High Court, relying on a vigilance inquiry and several complaints—including a Bar Association resolution—concluded his work and conduct were unsatisfactory. The appellant argued that his dismissal without a hearing

STATE OF PUNJABversusJUSTICE S.S. DEWAN (RETIRED CHIEF JUSTICE) AND ORS.

1997 INSC 43425 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Justice S.S. Dewan, former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, retired on 31‑12‑1989 and elected pension under Part III of Schedule I of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, governed by the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. On 20‑Feb‑1990 Rule 16 of those rules was amended

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusMANOHAR LAL MIRCHEA

1997 INSC 43525 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Manohar Lal Mirchea retired as a District and Sessions Judge in 1984, when his death‑cum‑retirement benefits were governed by the All India Services (Death‑cum‑Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. In 1990 Punjab amended Rule 16 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, making the Punjab Civil Service Rules (specifica

B.S. SHARMAversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2000 INSC 53317 November 2000Dismissed

The petitioner, a judicial officer of the Haryana Judicial Service, was transferred by the High Court in 1997 to serve as Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court. He argued that, under Section 7‑C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he could remain in that post until the age of 67, even though th

S.S. GREWALversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1993 INSC 1867 May 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of two officers appointed to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service in 1986 – the appellant, a general‑category candidate, and respondent No.3, a Mazhbi Sikh (Scheduled Caste). The dispute arose over which roster points (7 or 9) the two Scheduled‑Caste appointees – Shri G.S. Samr

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2018 INSC 9213 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The Punjab Superior Judicial Service recruited officers in 2008 through three streams – promotees (50% quota), out‑of‑turn promotees (25% quota) and direct recruits (25% quota). A seniority list dated 24‑12‑2015 placed promotees at the top, direct recruits next, out‑of‑turn promotees thereafter, and was challenged by d

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