Introduction
Whenever a Job notification is out the first thing we do is go to the salary section and check what is the remuneration for that particular job. In order to apply for that particular job and later put all the effort and hard-work to get selected, is a long and tiring process. If our efforts are not compensated satisfactorily, we might not really like to get into the long time consuming process.
When we go through the salary section we often see words like Pay Scale, Grade Pay, or even level one or two salary and it is common to get confused between these jargons and to know the perfect amount of salary that we are going to receive.
To understand what pay scale, grade pay, various numbers of levels and other technical terms, we first need to know what pay commission is and how it functions.
Pay Commission
The Constitution of India under Article 309 empowers the Parliament and State Government to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State.
The Pay Commission was established by the Indian government to make recommendations regarding the compensation of central government employees. Since India gained its independence, seven pay commissions have been established to examine and suggest changes to the pay structures of all civil and military employees of the Indian government.
The main objective of these various Pay Commissions was to improve the pay structure of its employees so that they can attract better talent to public service. In this 21st century, the global economy has undergone a vast change and it has seriously impacted the living conditions of the salaried class. The economic value of the salaries paid to them earlier has diminished. The economy has become more and more consumerized. Therefore, to keep the salary structure of the employees viable, it has become necessary to improve the pay structure of their employees so that better, more competent and talented people could be attracted to governance.
In this background, the Seventh Central Pay Commission was constituted and the government framed certain Terms of Reference for this Commission. The salient features of the terms are to examine and review the existing pay structure and to recommend changes in the pay, allowances and other facilities as are desirable and feasible for civil employees as well as for the Defence Forces, having due regard to the historical and traditional parities.
The Ministry of finance vide notification dated 25th July 2016 issued rules for 7th pay commission. The rules include a Schedule which shows categorically what payment has to be made to different positions. The said schedule is called 7th pay matrix
For the reference the table(7th pay matrix) is attached below.
Pay Band & Grade Pay
According to the table given above the first column shows the Pay band.
Pay Band is a pay scale according to the pay grades. It is a part of the salary process as it is used to rank different jobs by education, responsibility, location, and other multiple factors. The pay band structure is based on multiple factors and assigned pay grades should correlate with the salary range for the position with a minimum and maximum. Pay Band is used to define the compensation range for certain job profiles.
Here, Pay band is a part of an organized salary compensation plan, program or system. The Central and State Government has defined jobs, pay bands are used to distinguish the level of compensation given to certain ranges of jobs to have fewer levels of pay, alternative career tracks other than management, and barriers to hierarchy to motivate unconventional career moves. For example, entry-level positions might include security guard or karkoon. Those jobs and those of similar levels of responsibility might all be included in a named or numbered pay band that prescribed a range of pay.
The detailed calculation process of salary according to the pay matrix table is given under Rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.
As per Rule 7A(i), the pay in the applicable Level in the Pay Matrix shall be the pay obtained by multiplying the existing basic pay by a factor of 2.57, rounded off to the nearest rupee and the figure so arrived at will be located in that Level in the Pay Matrix and if such an identical figure corresponds to any Cell in the applicable Level of the Pay Matrix, the same shall be the pay, and if no such Cell is available in the applicable Level, the pay shall be fixed at the immediate next higher Cell in that applicable Level of the Pay Matrix.
The detailed table as mentioned in the Rules showing the calculation:
For example if your pay in Pay Band is 5200 (initial pay in pay band) and Grade Pay of 1800 then 5200+1800= 7000, now the said amount of 7000 would be multiplied to 2.57 as mentioned in the Rules. 7000 x 2.57= 17,990 so as per the rules the nearest amount the figure shall be fixed as pay level. Which in this case would be 18000/-.
The basic pay would increase as your experience at that job would increase as specified in vertical cells. For example if you continue to serve in the Basic Pay of 18000/- for 4 years then your basic pay would be 19700/- as mentioned in the table.
Dearness Allowance
However, the basic pay mentioned in the table is not the only amount of remuneration an employee receives. There are catena of benefits and further additions in the salary such as dearness allowance, HRA, TADA.
According to the Notification No. 1/1/2023-E.II(B) from the Ministry of Finance and Department of Expenditure, the Dearness Allowance payable to Central Government employees was enhanced from rate of 38% to 42% of Basic pay with effect from 1st January 2023.
Here, DA would be calculated on the basic salary. For example if your basic salary is of 18,000/- then 42% DA would be of 7,560/-
House Rent Allowance
Apart from that the HRA (House Rent Allowance) is also provided to employees according to their place of duties. Currently cities are classified into three categories as ‘X’ ‘Y’ ‘Z’ on the basis of the population.
According to the Compendium released by the Ministry of Finance and Department of Expenditure in Notification No. 2/4/2022-E.II B, the classification of cities and rates of HRA as per 7th CPC was introduced.
See the table for reference
However, after enhancement of DA from 38% to 42% the HRA would be revised to 27%, 18%, and 9% respectively.
As above calculated the DA on Basic Salary, in the same manner HRA would also be calculated on the Basic Salary. Now considering that the duty of an employee’s Job is at ‘X’ category of city then HRA will be calculated at 27% of basic salary.
Here, continuing with the same example of calculation with a basic salary of 18000/-, the amount of HRA would be 4,840/-
Transport Allowance
After calculation of DA and HRA, Central government employees are also provided with Transport Allowance (TA). After the 7th CPC the revised rates of Transport Allowance were released by the Ministry of Finance and Department of Expenditure in the Notification No. 21/5/2017-EII(B) wherein, a table giving detailed rates were produced.
The same table is reproduced hereinafter.
As mentioned above in the table, all the employees are given Transport Allowance according to their pay level and place of their duties. The list of annexed cities are given in the same Notification No. 21/5/2017-EII(B).
Again, continuing with the same example of calculation with a Basic Salary of 18000/- and assuming place of duty at the city mentioned in the annexure, the rate of Transport Allowance would be 1350/-
Apart from that, DA on TA is also provided as per the ongoing rate of DA. For example, if TA is 1350/- and rate of current DA on basic Salary is 42% then 42% of TA would be added to the calculation of gross salary. Here, DA on TA would be 567/-.
Calculation of Gross Salary
After calculating all the above benefits the Gross Salary is calculated.
Here, after calculating Basic Salary+DA+HRA+TA the gross salary would be 32,317/-
However, the Gross Salary is subject to few deductions such as NPS, Professional Tax, Medical as subject to the rules and directions by the Central Government. After the deductions from the Gross Salary an employee gets the Net Salary on hand.
However, it is pertinent to note that benefits such as HRA and TA are not absolute, these allowances are only admissible if an employee is not provided with a residence by the Central Government or facility of government transport.
Conclusion
Government service is not a contract. It is a status. The employees expect fair treatment from the government. The States should play a role model for the services. The Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another vs. State of Assam and others (reported in 2013(2)Sec 516) has observed as follows:
“………It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair. Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and that a model employer should not convert it to be deceitful and treacherous by playing a game of chess with their seniority. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized. We say no more.”
The consideration while framing Rules and Laws on payment of wages, it should be ensured that employees do not suffer economic hardship so that they can deliver and render the best possible service to the country and make the governance vibrant and effective.
Written by Husain Trivedi Advocate
Understanding the Doctrine of Merger: A Judicial Principle Reaffirmed by the Supreme Court
By Adv. Aaditya Bhatt
Introduction
The doctrine of merger stands as a fundamental principle in India’s judicial hierarchy, recently receiving renewed emphasis from the Supreme Court in January 2025. This principle ensures judicial finality by establishing that when a higher court adjudicates a matter previously decided by a lower court, only one decree ultimately governs. The landmark case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) remains the definitive exposition of this doctrine, clarifying its application and limitations. The recent Supreme Court ruling has further reinforced the importance of this doctrine in maintaining judicial discipline and preventing conflicting judgments.
The Doctrine of Merger: Concept and Foundation
The Doctrine of Merger is a common law principle rooted in the idea of maintaining the hierarchical structure of courts and tribunals. At its core, the doctrine posits that once a superior court disposes of a case, the decision or decree of the lower court merges with that of the superior court, regardless of whether the higher court confirms, modifies, or reverses the original decision[3]. This principle ensures that there cannot be more than one operative decree or order governing the same subject matter at a given point in time.
The doctrine serves multiple essential purposes in the judicial system:
- It maintains judicial hierarchy by respecting the superior authority of higher courts
- It prevents conflicting decisions on the same matter
- It ensures finality in litigation
- It promotes judicial economy by avoiding multiple proceedings on identical issues
The rationale behind this principle was aptly described by the Supreme Court when it noted that there cannot be, at the same time, more than one operative order governing the same subject matter[4]. This simple yet profound reasoning forms the foundation of the doctrine’s application across various judicial contexts.
Evolution Through Judicial Pronouncements
The doctrine of merger has evolved through a series of landmark judgments. Early discussions can be traced to the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in several cases including Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh (1974) established that there could be no distinction in terms of application between an appellate judgment simply dismissing an appeal and one modifying or reversing the lower court’s decree.
The doctrine continued to develop through various judicial pronouncements, with each case refining its scope and application in different contexts. These judgments collectively established the doctrine as an essential component of India’s judicial discipline.
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000): The Landmark Judgment
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) stands as the most comprehensive judicial examination of the doctrine of merger. This landmark judgment explored the doctrine’s application, particularly in relation to special leave petitions (SLPs) and the right to file for review of court orders.
In this seminal case, the Supreme Court articulated:
“The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way — whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below.”
The Court established several crucial principles in this judgment:
- The doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application
- Its applicability depends on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum
- The content or subject matter of challenge is determinative of whether merger applies
- The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying, or affirming the order put in issue before it
Special Leave Petitions and the Doctrine
A particularly significant aspect of the Kunhayammed judgment was its clarification regarding the application of the doctrine to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). The Court drew an important distinction:
“Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.”
This means that when an SLP is merely dismissed without granting leave to appeal, the doctrine of merger does not apply. However, once leave to appeal is granted and the Supreme Court exercises its appellate jurisdiction, the resulting order would attract the doctrine of merger.
Key Elements and Application of the Doctrine of Merger
For the doctrine of merger to apply, certain key conditions must be met:
- There must be a decision of a subordinate court or forum
- A right of appeal or revision must exist against this decision
- This right must be duly exercised
- The superior forum must modify, reverse, or affirm the decision
- As a consequence, the lower court’s decision merges with that of the superior forum
The doctrine finds application across various judicial contexts, including civil, criminal, and administrative matters. It applies whenever a higher court or tribunal exercises its appellate or revisional jurisdiction over a lower court’s decision.
Practical Application and Legal Effect
The practical effect of the doctrine is illustrated in recent cases. In January 2025, the Supreme Court explained the doctrine’s application in a case involving specific performance of an agreement to sell. The trial court had directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days, but when the matter reached the Punjab & Haryana High Court on appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal without specifying a time limit for the deposit.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the question arose whether the trial court’s 20-day timeline would still apply. The Court ruled that since the High Court’s order had not specified a timeline, and because the trial court’s order had merged with the High Court’s decision, the 20-day period from the trial court could not be revived. This clearly demonstrates how the doctrine functions in practice to ensure that only one order remains operative.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Merger
While the doctrine of merger is widely applicable, it is not absolute. Several important exceptions have been recognized:
- The doctrine does not apply to dismissal of Special Leave Petitions without reasons, as the Supreme Court does not express any opinion on the merits in such cases.
- The extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 to do complete justice remain an exception to the doctrine of merger.
- The doctrine’s application depends on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content of the challenge[2].
These exceptions ensure that the doctrine remains flexible enough to serve justice while maintaining its core purpose of preventing multiple operative orders on the same subject matter.
Recent Judicial Reaffirmation (2025)
In January 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan reaffirmed and clarified the doctrine of merger. The Court emphasized that there cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at any given time.
The Court stated: “When a superior court disposes of a case, whether by setting aside, modifying, or confirming the lower court’s decree, the superior court’s order becomes the final, binding, and operative decree, merging the lower court’s decision into it.”
This recent reaffirmation underscores the continuing relevance and importance of the doctrine in the Indian judicial system, demonstrating how fundamental principles established in cases like Kunhayammed continue to shape judicial practice decades later.
Significance and Implications for Legal Practice
The doctrine of merger has several significant implications for legal practice:
- It provides clarity on which judgment is enforceable when multiple courts have ruled on the same matter.
- It establishes judicial finality, preventing parties from seeking to enforce conflicting judgments from different courts.
- It upholds the hierarchical structure of the judicial system by ensuring that higher courts’ decisions take precedence.
- It guides legal practitioners on the appropriate forum for challenging judicial decisions, based on whether merger has occurred.
The doctrine therefore serves as a crucial organizing principle in the complex landscape of judicial appeals and revisions, providing certainty and consistency to litigants and legal practitioners alike.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Merger stands as a cornerstone of India’s judicial architecture, ensuring clarity, consistency, and finality in legal proceedings. The landmark Kunhayammed judgment established its foundational principles, while recent Supreme Court pronouncements have reaffirmed its continued relevance and application.
The doctrine elegantly resolves what could otherwise be a chaotic situation of multiple operative orders governing the same subject matter. By establishing that a lower court’s decision merges with that of a higher court when reviewed, the doctrine maintains judicial discipline and hierarchy while preventing conflicting judgments.
As India’s legal system continues to evolve, the Doctrine of Merger remains an essential tool for achieving judicial coherence and upholding the rule of law, demonstrating how fundamental principles can adapt to new contexts while maintaining their essential purpose of delivering clear and consistent justice.
References
- Doctrine of Merger – Drishti Judiciary
- Analyse Doctrine of Merger of Orders – MCO Legals
- Doctrine of Merger – CivilsDaily
- The Doctrine of Merger | SCC Times
- Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another (2000)
- Doctrine of Merger Explained: Supreme Court Rules on Binding Nature of Higher Court Orders – Legal Wires
Legal Analysis of India’s Green Credit Programme: Framework, Challenges, and Implications
By Adv. Aaditya Bhatt
Introduction to Green Credit Programme
India’s Green Credit Programme (GCP), launched by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) in October 2023, represents an ambitious market-based mechanism designed to incentivize voluntary environmental actions across various sectors. However, recent revelations through Right to Information (RTI) responses have brought to light significant legal controversies surrounding its implementation. As environmental lawyers and policymakers grapple with these issues, it becomes imperative to critically examine the legal framework, procedural irregularities, and potential implications of this novel environmental governance mechanism. This article undertakes a comprehensive legal analysis of the GCP, examining its statutory basis, implementation challenges, and broader implications for environmental governance in India.
Historical Context of Environmental Market Mechanisms in India
To fully appreciate the legal complexities surrounding the Green Credit Programme, it is essential to understand the evolution of market-based environmental governance in India. Traditional command-and-control approaches have dominated India’s environmental regulation framework since the enactment of key legislation like the Environment Protection Act (EPA) of 1986. However, the past two decades have witnessed a gradual shift toward incorporating market-based instruments that leverage economic incentives to achieve environmental objectives.
The first significant move in this direction came with the Energy Conservation Act of 2001, which provided a legal foundation for energy efficiency certificates. This was followed by the introduction of Renewable Energy Certificates in 2010 under the Electricity Act, 2003. More recently, the Plastic Waste Management Rules incorporated an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework, introducing a certificate-based compliance mechanism. Each of these mechanisms, however, was implemented only after establishing explicit statutory authority through either new legislation or specific amendments to existing laws.
The Green Credit Programme represents a departure from this established pattern, as it attempts to create a tradable credit system under the umbrella of the Environment Protection Act without a corresponding amendment to the parent legislation. This procedural innovation has raised fundamental questions about the legal validity of the programme and the scope of delegated legislative authority under the EPA.
Legal Framework of the Green Credit Programme
The Green Credit Programme was officially notified through the Green Credit Rules on October 13, 2023, under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The programme encompasses eight key activities: tree plantation, water management, sustainable agriculture, waste management, air pollution reduction, mangrove conservation, governance, and administration. Under this framework, individuals, communities, and private industries that engage in environment-positive actions receive tradable ‘green credits,’ which can then be used to meet legal obligations such as compensatory afforestation requirements for industrial or infrastructure projects.
The MoEF&CC has justified the programme’s legal basis by citing Section 3 of the EPA, which empowers the Central Government to “plan and execute a nationwide programme for the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution.” The Ministry argues that the GCP supports environmental protection and improvement, placing it squarely within the scope of the EPA’s mandate. Additionally, the Ministry has drawn parallels with the Extended Producer Responsibility framework under waste management rules, suggesting that market-based mechanisms already operate under the EPA umbrella.
However, this interpretation of the EPA’s scope has been contested by legal experts and the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice itself. The central question revolves around whether the EPA, as currently written, provides sufficient statutory authority for establishing a market-based trading system for environmental credits without specific legislative amendments. This question is particularly salient given that similar mechanisms, such as the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme, were only implemented after specific amendments to their respective parent acts.
Procedural Irregularities in Green Credit Programme Implementation
Documents obtained through RTI reveal a concerning pattern of procedural irregularities in the implementation of the Green Credit Programme. On October 5, 2023, the Legislative Department under the Ministry of Law and Justice cautioned that the provisions of the Environment Protection Act “perhaps do not support such business objects or activity and rules to be framed for the purposes.” The Department advised the Environment Ministry to “examine the legality of the proposed Green Credit Rules in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs.”
Despite this explicit recommendation, the Environment Ministry proceeded with the notification of the Green Credit Rules on October 13, 2023, without obtaining the suggested legal review from the Department of Legal Affairs. The Ministry’s internal communications reveal that it justified this decision based on “the importance of launch and early roll out for implementation of the Green Credit Programme,” suggesting that programmatic priorities may have superseded legal due diligence concerns.
The issue reemerged on January 4, 2024, when the Legislative Department, while reviewing the methodology for tree plantation-based credits, noted that it had no record of advice from the Department of Legal Affairs on the matter. To this observation, the Environment Ministry simply referred back to its submissions from October 10, 2023, without addressing the underlying legal concerns.
These procedural irregularities raise important questions about administrative law principles, particularly the doctrine of procedural propriety. The Supreme Court has consistently held that administrative actions must adhere to procedural fairness and due diligence. In cases like Cellular Operators Association of India v. TRAI (2016), the Court emphasized that regulatory actions must follow proper consultative procedures and consider expert advice. The apparent sidestepping of the Law Ministry’s recommendations may potentially render the Green Credit Rules vulnerable to judicial challenge on procedural grounds.
Comparative Analysis with Related Legal Frameworks
To assess the legal validity of the Green Credit Programme, it is instructive to compare it with other market-based environmental mechanisms in India, particularly those that have undergone specific legislative authorization.
The Carbon Credit Trading Scheme, announced in the 2023 Union Budget, required an amendment to the Energy Conservation Act before implementation. The amendment explicitly empowered the government to specify a carbon credit trading scheme and issue carbon credit certificates. Similarly, the Renewable Energy Certificate mechanism was established only after specific provisions were included in the Electricity Act regulations.
In contrast, the Environment Ministry has justified the GCP by drawing parallels with the Extended Producer Responsibility framework under waste management rules. However, this comparison merits careful scrutiny. As noted by senior advocate Sanjay Upadhyay, “The comparison of extended producer responsibility framework and green credit is an unfair comparison and almost amounts to comparing apples with oranges. This is because EPR is not voluntary but obligatory and the green credit program is a voluntary program.”
Furthermore, the EPR framework operates within a narrower regulatory scope, focusing specifically on producer obligations for waste management, rather than creating a broad-based trading platform for diverse environmental activities. The regulatory intent and operational scope of these mechanisms differ significantly, raising questions about the validity of drawing direct legal parallels between them.
Constitutional and Administrative Law Implications
The Green Credit Programme raises several important questions of constitutional and administrative law that extend beyond procedural irregularities to touch upon fundamental principles of separation of powers and delegated legislation.
The doctrine of ultra vires is particularly relevant here. This doctrine limits administrative actions to the scope of authority granted by the parent legislation. In Vide State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Kamath (1983), the Supreme Court held that delegated legislation must conform strictly to the parent act’s authorization. The question emerges whether the Green Credit Rules, by creating a market-based trading system without explicit authorization in the Environment Protection Act, exceed the scope of delegated legislative authority.
Additionally, the principle of legislative intent is central to interpreting statutory powers. When the EPA was enacted in 1986, market-based environmental governance mechanisms were not prevalent in India’s regulatory landscape. This raises the question of whether the establishment of a trading platform for environmental credits falls within the original legislative intent of the EPA.
The constitutional principle of “colorable legislation” may also be relevant. This principle, established in cases like K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953), holds that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. If creating a market-based environmental credit system would normally require legislative amendment (as with carbon credits), implementing such a system through rules without amending the parent act might potentially be viewed as circumventing the legislative process.
Stakeholder Perspectives and Expert Opinions
Legal experts and former government officials have expressed varying views on the legal foundation of the Green Credit Programme. Prakriti Srivastava, a retired Indian Forest Service officer and former Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Kerala, has stated unequivocally that “the Environment Protection Act in no way provides for a business model for exchange of green credits for compensatory afforestation.” She argues that if the EPA were to be used for such a purpose, it should have been amended following due process, including parliamentary approval.
Environmental law practitioners have highlighted another dimension of concern: the potential for regulatory uncertainty. When programmes are implemented without clear legislative mandates, they create unpredictability for stakeholders and may face challenges in courts, undermining their effectiveness and longevity. This is particularly problematic for market-based mechanisms, which rely on stable, predictable frameworks to build investor confidence.
Industry stakeholders, meanwhile, have shown significant interest in the programme despite its legal uncertainties. Since its launch, 384 entities, including 41 public sector undertakings such as Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd, have registered for participation. This suggests a strong market appetite for such mechanisms, even as legal questions remain unresolved.
Judicial Precedents on Environmental Governance
Indian courts have developed a rich jurisprudence on environmental governance that offers insights into how the Green Credit Programme might be evaluated in potential legal challenges.
In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court recognized the government’s duty to implement environmental protection measures effectively but also emphasized the importance of following established legal procedures. Similarly, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), while endorsing the ‘polluter pays’ principle that aligns with market-based mechanisms, the Court underscored the need for such principles to be implemented within the existing legal framework.
More recently, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2017), concerning vehicular pollution in Delhi, the Supreme Court acknowledged the value of innovative regulatory approaches but stressed that such innovations must be grounded in sound legal authority. Similarly, in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019), the Court held that environmental regulatory bodies must act within their statutory mandates and follow proper procedures.
These precedents suggest that while courts may be sympathetic to innovative environmental governance mechanisms like the GCP, they are likely to scrutinize whether such mechanisms have been established with proper legal authority and through appropriate procedural channels.
International Perspectives and Best Practices
The legal challenges facing India’s Green Credit Programme are not unique. Many jurisdictions worldwide have grappled with similar questions when implementing market-based environmental mechanisms. Examining these international experiences provides valuable context for evaluating India’s approach.
The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), often cited as a model for market-based environmental governance, was established through a specific directive (Directive 2003/87/EC) that provided clear legislative authority. Similarly, California’s Cap-and-Trade Program was authorized by specific legislation (AB 32) before implementation. These examples highlight the international norm of establishing explicit legislative foundations for environmental market mechanisms.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has also emphasized the importance of robust legal frameworks for market-based mechanisms. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which governs international carbon markets, explicitly requires participating countries to establish clear regulatory frameworks with appropriate legal authority.
These international precedents suggest that robust legal foundations are not merely procedural formalities but essential elements for the credibility and effectiveness of market-based environmental mechanisms. They provide stakeholders with certainty and confidence in the system’s stability and legitimacy.
Path Ahead for Green Credit Programme
Given the legal uncertainties surrounding the Green Credit Programme, several potential remedies and paths forward merit consideration:
First, ex post legislative validation could address the current legal ambiguities. The government could introduce amendments to the Environment Protection Act explicitly authorizing the establishment of a green credit trading system, similar to the approach taken with the carbon credit trading scheme. Such amendments could provide retrospective validation for the actions already taken while establishing a clear legal foundation for future operations.
Second, comprehensive rules with enhanced procedural safeguards could be formulated. Even without amending the parent act, the government could draft more comprehensive rules that address the concerns raised by the Legislative Department, possibly after obtaining formal opinions from the Department of Legal Affairs. These rules could include enhanced procedural safeguards, clearer definitions of terms, and more robust governance mechanisms.
Third, judicial clarification through a reference or test case could be sought. The government or stakeholders could seek judicial clarification on the scope of the EPA’s provisions relating to market-based mechanisms. This approach would provide authoritative guidance on the legal boundaries within which such mechanisms can operate under the current legislative framework.
Finally, integration with established legal frameworks could be pursued. The GCP could be more explicitly integrated with established legal frameworks such as the compensatory afforestation regime under the Forest (Conservation) Act, providing a clearer legal nexus between the credits and their intended uses.
Environmental Justice and Equity Considerations
Beyond the technical legal questions, the Green Credit Programme also raises important environmental justice and equity considerations that have legal dimensions. Market-based environmental mechanisms have been criticized globally for potentially exacerbating existing inequalities if not designed with explicit equity safeguards.
The Supreme Court, in cases like Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Environmental Education case, 1991), has recognized environmental rights as an integral aspect of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This rights-based perspective requires environmental governance mechanisms to not only be legally sound but also equitable and accessible to all sections of society.
The GCP’s design and implementation must therefore be evaluated not only for its technical legal compliance but also for its alignment with constitutional principles of equity and justice. This includes ensuring that the benefits of the programme reach marginalized communities and that participation is not limited to large corporate entities with resources to navigate complex market mechanisms.
Implications for Environmental Governance
The legal controversies surrounding the Green Credit Programme have broader implications for environmental governance in India, particularly as the country increasingly adopts market-based regulatory approaches.
The tension between regulatory innovation and legal due process highlighted by this case reflects a broader challenge in environmental governance: balancing the need for rapid, effective responses to environmental challenges with the importance of procedural propriety and legal certainty. As climate change and other environmental crises become more urgent, this tension is likely to intensify.
The GCP case also underscores the importance of transparent, consultative processes in developing environmental regulations. The apparent sidestepping of legal advice and limited public consultation in the programme’s development raises concerns about regulatory capture and democratic accountability in environmental policymaking.
Finally, the case highlights the need for a more comprehensive legal framework for market-based environmental mechanisms in India. Rather than addressing each mechanism in isolation, there may be value in developing overarching legislation that provides general principles and safeguards for all such mechanisms, similar to approaches taken in jurisdictions like the European Union.
Conclusion: Strengthening the Legal Backbone of the Green Credit Programme
The Green Credit Programme represents an innovative approach to environmental governance in India, with potential benefits for forest cover enhancement and sustainable practices. However, its implementation has raised significant legal questions that merit careful consideration by policymakers, legal practitioners, and the judiciary.
The procedural irregularities in the programme’s implementation, particularly the apparent sidestepping of legal advice from the Ministry of Law and Justice, raise concerns about adherence to principles of administrative law and proper procedure. The more fundamental question of whether the Environment Protection Act provides sufficient legal basis for establishing a market-based trading system for environmental credits without specific legislative amendments remains unresolved.
As the programme continues to operate and attract participants, these legal uncertainties create potential risks for both the government and stakeholders. They also raise broader questions about the legal foundations of market-based environmental governance in India and the appropriate balance between regulatory innovation and legal due process.
The way forward should involve addressing these legal challenges transparently and systematically, potentially through legislative amendments, enhanced procedural safeguards, or judicial clarification. Such measures would not only strengthen the legal foundation of the Green Credit Programme but also contribute to the development of a more robust legal framework for market-based environmental governance in India.
In an era of accelerating environmental challenges, innovative regulatory approaches like the Green Credit Programme are increasingly necessary. However, their effectiveness and legitimacy ultimately depend on their grounding in sound legal principles and proper procedural implementation. The legal controversies surrounding the GCP offer valuable lessons for ensuring that future innovations in environmental governance are both effective in addressing environmental challenges and robust in their legal foundations.
References
Statutory Materials
- The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- The Energy Conservation Act, 2001 (as amended in 2023)
- The Electricity Act, 2003
- Green Credit Rules, 2023
Case Law
- Cellular Operators Association of India v. TRAI (2016) 7 SCC 703
- State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Kamath (1983) 2 SCC 402
- K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa AIR 1953 SC 375
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case) (2017) 7 SCC 243
- Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author and do not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals for specific legal matters.
Quashed FIR and Public Employment: Why It Cannot Be a Ground for Denial of Employment and the Role of Supernumerary Posts
An Analysis of Judicial Precedents Upholding the Right to Public Employment and Remedial Measures When Candidates Face Discrimination Due to Criminal Allegations
By Adv. Aaditya Bhatt
Introduction
The Indian judiciary has consistently upheld the principle that once an FIR is quashed, it cannot be a basis for denying public employment. Furthermore, courts have established that when candidates are wrongfully denied appointments citing pendency of FIRs, they may be accommodated through the creation of supernumerary posts even if all regular positions have been filled. This article explores the extensive jurisprudence surrounding this issue, analyzing landmark judgments that establish the legal framework governing quashed FIRs, public employment eligibility, and remedial measures.
Legal Framework: Understanding FIRs and Their Impact on Public Employment
Nature and Legal Significance of FIRs
An FIR (First Information Report) merely represents information about an alleged offense reported to the police, which triggers an investigation. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2022 emphasized that “FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence. Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment.”
The court further emphasized that “A person is to be presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise upon a trial conducted as per the law,” and that this presumption “cannot be eclipsed in any other collateral process or for any other purpose.”
Constitutional Safeguards in Public Employment
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution guarantee equality before law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court explicitly stated that denying benefits to citizens based on pending FIRs makes “an irrelevant fact a ground to deny to the citizen right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This approach is sworn enemy of the rule of law, and thus has to be discarded.”
Judicial Position on Quashed FIRs and Pending Criminal Cases
Tripura High Court’s Landmark Ruling (2018)
In a significant 2018 judgment, the Tripura High Court established a clear precedent on quashed FIRs. The court held that “the FIR once registered has been quashed by the Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC, no inference can be drawn to impute any adverse antecedents which in any manner may deprive an individual from seeking public employment.”
The case involved a petitioner whose selection for a Group D post was cancelled due to an FIR registered against him under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. After the FIR was quashed by the court, finding it to be fabricated, the court directed that “no adverse inference should be drawn to implicate the petitioner,” and that his candidature should be considered for appointment.
J&K High Court on Pending Criminal Cases (2025)
In a February 2025 ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that “the mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify an individual from being appointed to a government post or carrying out their duties.”
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Chowdhary ruled that “a person facing trial cannot be denied employment solely based on an unproven charge,” upholding the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The court referenced the J&K Civil Services (Verification of Character and Antecedents) Instructions, 1997, noting that since the respondent had disclosed the pending case and the CID verification report had no adverse findings, there was no legal ground to cancel the appointment.
Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Firm Stance (2022)
Directing Canara Bank to issue an appointment letter to a woman whose offer was cancelled due to a pending FIR, the Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the practice of denying employment based on pending FIRs as “a systemic bias based upon a negativism arising from the frustration due to the facts that the criminal cases remain pending for years together and the courts are not in a position to take the trial to a logical end within reasonable time.”
The court further noted that “a convenient method has been devised to deny benefits to citizens by using pendency of FIR against them.”
Grounds for Quashing FIRs: The Bhajan Lal Guidelines
Supreme Court’s Established Grounds
The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, established specific principles under which an FIR can be quashed. According to these guidelines, an FIR can be quashed on the following grounds:
- When allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offense
- Where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offense
- When there is absence of evidence to support allegations
- When allegations are absurd or inherently improbable
- When there is a legal bar against proceedings
These guidelines are frequently cited in cases involving quashing of FIRs and their subsequent impact on employment opportunities.
Supernumerary Posts as a Remedial Measure
Concept and Judicial Recognition
A supernumerary post is a position created beyond the sanctioned strength to accommodate a person who has been wrongfully denied appointment. The Supreme Court has recognized and applied this concept as an effective remedy in numerous cases.
In Sushma Gosain and Others v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court explicitly stated: “It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.”
Recent Supreme Court Direction (2024)
In a recent 2024 judgment concerning eligibility criteria for Food Safety Officers, the Supreme Court directed that “If no vacancies were available, supernumerary posts were to be created to accommodate the appellants.” The Court further specified that “The appellants, if appointed, would not be entitled to back wages but would receive notional benefits.”
Limitations and Conditions
While courts have often directed the creation of supernumerary posts, they have also established certain limitations. In State of Odisha & Ors. v. Kamalini Khilar, the Supreme Court observed:
“By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the direction of the Tribunal to reinstate the Respondent No. 1 by creating a supernumerary post.”
This indicates that the creation of supernumerary posts is not an automatic remedy but must be justified by the specific circumstances of each case.
Back Wages and Service Benefits: The Extent of Remedy
Position on Back Wages
Courts have taken varying positions on whether candidates wrongfully denied employment are entitled to back wages. In some cases, courts have held that appointment to a supernumerary post does not automatically entitle the candidate to back wages from the date of wrongful denial.
In a Supreme Court case referenced in the search results, the Court held that “The claim of Respondent No. 1 for back wages from the date of termination is at any rate clearly untenable” even while directing appointment to a vacant position.
Supreme Court on Recovery After Quashing Appointments
In an important 2013 judgment, the Supreme Court held that “courts cannot order recovery of the amount of an employee while quashing the appointment as the denial of pay for the service rendered would amount to ‘impermissible’ ‘forced labour’.”
The Court further emphasized that “a judgment can be erroneous but when there is a direction for recovery of the honorarium, it indubitably creates a dent in the honour of a person. Honour once lost may be irredeemable or irresuscitable.”
Seniority and Notional Benefits
When it comes to seniority and other service benefits, courts have often provided specific directions. In one case, the Supreme Court directed: “For the purposes of seniority, the appellant shall be placed below the last candidate appointed in 1976, but she will not be entitled to any back wages.”
This demonstrates that while courts provide remedies for wrongful denial of employment, they balance these remedies with practical considerations regarding seniority, back wages, and administrative efficiency.
Distinction Between Quashed FIR and Tainted Selection Processes
Upholding Merit in Selection Processes
While courts have consistently ruled that quashed FIRs cannot bar public employment, they maintain a clear distinction between this principle and cases involving tainted selection processes. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment (April 3, 2025) upholding the Calcutta High Court’s decision to invalidate nearly 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016 highlights this distinction.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar affirmed that “this is the case where the entire selection process is vitiated and tainted beyond resolution. Manipulation and fraud on large scale, coupled with the intention to cover up have tainted the selection process beyond repair. The legitimacy and credibility of the selection process are denuded.”
This judgment reaffirms that in matters involving Quashed FIR and Public Employment, while candidates must not suffer due to quashed or pending criminal cases, the fairness and integrity of the selection process must still be upheld.
Challenging Quashing of FIR and Settlement Agreements
Supreme Court’s Position on Settlement Agreements
The Supreme Court, in Anil Mishra v. State of UP & Ors. (2024), clarified that settlement agreements cannot be the sole basis for quashing criminal proceedings, especially when the original complainant is not a party to such agreements.
The Court emphasized that the High Court “must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings; or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer.”
This judgment is relevant to our discussion as it establishes the parameters within which FIRs can be legitimately quashed, thereby affecting subsequent employment considerations.
Concluding Note on Quashed FIR and Public Employment
The jurisprudence on quashed FIRs and their impact on public employment demonstrates a consistent approach by Indian courts in upholding the constitutional rights of candidates. Once an FIR is quashed, no adverse inference can be drawn to impute negative antecedents that would deprive an individual of public employment opportunities. Similarly, the mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a legitimate ground for denying appointments.
When candidates have been wrongfully denied opportunities based on quashed FIRs or pending criminal cases, courts have frequently directed the creation of supernumerary posts as an appropriate remedial measure. However, the entitlement to back wages and determinations on seniority are decided on a case-by-case basis, balancing individual rights with administrative considerations.
This body of jurisprudence reflects the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the presumption of innocence, protecting constitutional rights to equality in public employment, and ensuring that qualified candidates are not unjustly excluded from government service based on unproven allegations or quashed criminal proceedings.
Public employers and appointment authorities must align their policies with these established legal principles to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure fair consideration of all eligible candidates, regardless of past legal proceedings that have been terminated in their favor.
Telangana High Court Stay Order on Green Cover Clearance Near Hyderabad University: Legal, Environmental, and Political Implications
By Adv. Aaditya Bhatt
Introduction
The Telangana High Court Stay Order on Green Cover Clearance, issued on April 2, 2025, has triggered a nationwide debate over how India should balance rapid urban development with ecological preservation. The interim order halted the clearing of 400 acres near Hyderabad Central University (HCU), an area of significant environmental value. This article examines the legal framework, environmental stakes, and political dynamics shaping this high-stakes conflict.
Legal Framework and Ownership Dispute
Historical Context of Land Allocation
The contested 400-acre parcel in Kancha Gachibowli is part of a larger 2,324-acre tract allocated to HCU in 1975. While the university claims historical custodianship, the Telangana High Court ruled in 2022 that no legal deed transferred ownership to HCU, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court. The state government asserts the land was lawfully transferred to IMG Bharata Academies in 2004 for industrial use.
Forest Conservation Laws in Focus
Environmental petitioners, led by the Vata Foundation, argue the area qualifies as a “deemed forest” under the Supreme Court’s 1996 Godavarman judgment, which expanded the Forest Conservation Act’s scope beyond officially recorded forests. They allege violations of:
- Forest Conservation Act 1980: Mandates central approval for deforestation.
- Water, Land, and Trees Act (WALTA): Restricts tree felling without permits.
The 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act complicates matters by exempting certain lands near borders and infrastructure projects from protection. Critics argue this weakens safeguards, a concern amplified by the Supreme Court’s recent interim order against forest loss.
Ecological Significance and Environmental Impact
Biodiversity Hotspot Under Threat
The disputed land hosts 237 bird species, spotted deer, wild boars, and unique rock formations. Environmentalists warn that clearing it would:
- Disrupt watersheds feeding local lakes.
- Destroy habitats for endangered species.
- Eliminate carbon sinks critical for Hyderabad’s climate resilience.
Centre’s Action to Stop Tree Cutting
The Union Environment Ministry directed Telangana to submit a factual report by April 3, 2025, and initiate legal action against unauthorized tree felling under the Wildlife Protection Act. This intervention underscores the site’s national ecological importance.
Political Debate over Green Cover Clearance in Hyderabad
Opposition vs Government Narratives
Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS): Accuses the Congress-led government of “green murder,” alleging the IT park project bypassed mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments. Former Deputy CM K.T. Rama Rao criticized Rahul Gandhi’s silence, framing the issue as hypocrisy in environmental stewardship.
Congress Defense: Claims the land was legally acquired from a private entity post-Supreme Court validation. It accuses opponents of politicizing development essential for job creation.
University’s Contradictory Stance
HCU Registrar Devesh Nigam rejected the state’s survey demarcation, urging reconsideration of the land’s ecological value. However, the institution’s lack of legal ownership weakens its standing.
Judicial Proceedings and Next Steps
High Court’s Interim Order
Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul’s bench halted all activities until April 3, emphasizing the precautionary principle in environmental law. The court will assess:
- Compliance with forest laws.
- Validity of “deemed forest” claims.
- Political interference allegations.
Supreme Court Precedents
The ruling in State of Telangana vs Mohd. Abdul Qasim (2024) emphasized prioritizing tribal rights and ecological integrity over state development agendas, a likely reference point in this case.
Conclusion: A Watershed Moment for Urban Conservation
The Kancha Gachibowli dispute captures the larger struggle of balancing urban growth with ecological responsibility. The Telangana High Court Stay Order on Green Cover Clearance has pushed this issue into the national spotlight, raising important questions about how development projects are planned and approved.
Key takeaways include:
-
Legal Precedent: The verdict could redefine what qualifies as a “forest” under the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act, shaping future land-use cases.
-
Environmental Oversight: The Centre’s involvement reflects growing pressure to hold state authorities accountable for protecting sensitive green zones.
-
Political Transparency: As BRS and Congress trade barbs, the case reveals how environmental decisions are too often caught in political crossfire.
As hearings resume, all eyes remain on whether judicial intervention can forge a path where IT corridors coexist with biodiversity corridors—a critical blueprint for India’s climate-vulnerable cities.
