Public Interest & Employment
Represented 8,000 selected Lekhpal candidates from Uttar Pradesh, persuading the Supreme Court to lift its stay and clear the way for their appointments.
Promotion, suspension, dismissal, pay and pension matters before the Supreme Court of India, the High Courts and Tribunals.
The Chambers of Kumar Abhishek & Associates acts for academicians, administrative staff and officials, judicial officers, public-employment aspirants and State candidates in service and administrative law matters.
The work covers appointment and recruitment, promotion, reservation, suspension, dismissal and termination, payment of salaries and benefits, pensions and probation — before the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court and other High Courts, and Tribunals.
Represented 8,000 selected Lekhpal candidates from Uttar Pradesh, persuading the Supreme Court to lift its stay and clear the way for their appointments.
Appeared before the Supreme Court in matters relating to pensions and post-retiral benefits of High Court Judges; the Court held in their favour, applying the principle of One Rank One Pension.
Appeared before the Supreme Court in cases concerning the promotion of Additional District Judges; the question of uniformity of service conditions remains to be decided.
Appeared before the Supreme Court in matters relating to probation and arbitrary termination of judicial officers (Civil Judges).
Drafted the SLP and appeared for a Scheduled Caste woman judicial-service aspirant from Haryana who was excluded from the merit list despite seats remaining vacant.
Appeared for and advised academicians, administrative officers, and officials in matters of promotion, payment of salaries and benefits, and arbitrary termination.
No. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court held that suspension should not ordinarily extend beyond three months if the memorandum of charges or chargesheet has not been served within that period; if it is served, a reasoned order is needed to extend the suspension. An employee under suspension is generally entitled to a subsistence allowance under the applicable service rules.
For civil servants of the Union and the States, Article 311(2) of the Constitution requires an inquiry in which the employee is informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, subject to the limited exceptions in that Article.
Service disputes of Central Government employees generally go first to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Orders of the Tribunal can then be challenged before the High Court and, thereafter, the Supreme Court.
Depending on the State, before the State Administrative Tribunal where one exists, or otherwise before the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Disputes over recruitment examinations and merit lists are commonly raised this way.
This is general information about legal procedure, not legal advice on any particular matter.