High Courts Address Service Law, ITC, and Governance in a Landmark Week

New Delhi – In a week marked by significant judicial pronouncements across the country, High Courts, led by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, delivered a series of rulings with far-reaching implications for service law, employee rights, and public governance. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court provided crucial clarity on long-standing tax disputes, particularly concerning Input Tax Credit (ITC), offering relief to businesses nationwide. This week's legal developments underscore the judiciary's active role in upholding principles of fairness, protecting bona fide actors, and holding government authorities accountable.

From affirming post-mortem rights to regularisation and challenging the exploitation of "volunteers" to setting strict timelines for disciplinary actions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been particularly active. These decisions, coupled with key tax rulings from other High Courts and the Supreme Court, paint a picture of a judiciary deeply engaged with the nuanced challenges of modern legal practice.

---

Service Law Jurisprudence: Upholding Employee Rights Beyond Service and Life

The Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered several key judgments that strengthen the rights of government and contractual employees, emphasizing principles of fairness over procedural technicalities.

Right to Regularisation Survives Employee's Death

In a poignant ruling in RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS , the High Court held that the right to regularisation of service, once accrued, does not extinguish upon an employee's death. The Court observed that if an employee becomes eligible for regularisation but passes away before the formal order is issued, the benefit is deemed to have vested and can be claimed by their legal heirs.

The bench articulated a powerful judicial philosophy, stating, "justice, even if delayed, must be seen to repair what was broken not only in legality, but in principle." This decision is a significant victory for the families of employees who have spent years in precarious employment, ensuring that bureaucratic delays do not nullify their accrued rights. It establishes that regularisation is not merely a prospective benefit but a vested right earned through service, which becomes part of the employee's estate upon eligibility.

Decades of Service Cannot Be Labelled 'Volunteer' Work

The Court took a strong stance against the practice of retaining individuals for decades in temporary positions under the guise of "volunteers." In HARDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS , the Court directed the regularisation of a Home Guard who had served for nearly three decades.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismantled the state's argument, observing, "A member who is working for part of the day or part of the month or part of the year and doing some other job for his livelihood may be called as volunteer, however, a man who is working entire day and without interruption for three decades cannot be called as volunteer." This judgment directly confronts the exploitation of labour under temporary or volunteer classifications, particularly in para-police forces, and sets a strong precedent for others in similar situations to claim permanent status based on the nature and duration of their service.

Timelines Set for Disciplinary Proceedings

Recognising the punitive nature of prolonged departmental inquiries, the High Court in Khairati Lal v. State of Haryana and others issued a set of guidelines to streamline and expedite disciplinary proceedings. The Court noted that "undue prolongation of proceedings often causes mental agony, financial hardship, and social stigma, even before the charges are proven, which is a punishment in itself." By setting a timeline, the Court aims to balance the state's right to discipline its employees with the employee's right to a fair and speedy resolution, preventing inquiries from becoming a tool of harassment.

---

Key Tax Rulings: Protecting Bona Fide Taxpayers

The judiciary also provided much-needed clarity on several contentious issues in tax law, with the Supreme Court and various High Courts protecting taxpayers from penalties arising from circumstances beyond their control.

Supreme Court Protects Buyers from Seller's ITC Default

In a landmark decision in THE COMMISSIONER TRADE AND TAX, DELHI vs M/S SHANTI KIRAN INDIA (P) LTD. [2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 316] , the Supreme Court upheld the principle that a bona fide purchasing dealer cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit the collected tax with the government. Affirming the Delhi High Court's earlier reading down of Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act, the Apex Court held that penalising a genuine purchaser for the seller’s default offends Article 14 of the Constitution. This ruling provides immense relief to businesses, confirming that the onus of recovery lies with the tax authorities against the defaulting seller, not the compliant buyer.

Subsequent Cancellation of Supplier’s GSTIN No Ground to Deny ITC

Echoing the Supreme Court's sentiment, the Allahabad High Court in M/S Singhal Iron Traders vs Additional Commissioner And Another [2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2073] ruled that ITC cannot be denied to a buyer just because the supplier's GST registration was cancelled at a later date. The Court emphasised that as long as the transaction was genuine at the time of purchase—supported by valid invoices, e-way bills, and bank payments—the buyer's right to ITC is protected. The bench criticized the department for acting on "borrowed information" without verifying the supplier's status at the time of the transaction.

IBC Moratorium No Shield for Directors in Cheque Bounce Cases

The Bombay High Court, in Ortho Relief Hospital and Research Centre vs M/s. Anand Distilleries [2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2062] , clarified the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the moratorium under IBC protects the corporate debtor but does not absolve directors of their personal criminal liability in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. This ruling prevents the misuse of IBC proceedings as a shield to evade personal accountability for financial defaults.

---

Criminal and Administrative Law: Clarifications on Abetment and Reservation

The Punjab and Haryana High Court also issued important clarifications in criminal and administrative law.

High Bar for Proving Abetment to Suicide

In XXXX v. XXXX , the Court acquitted a mother-in-law convicted of abetting her daughter-in-law's suicide. The judgment reiterated a crucial legal principle: "a mere allegation of harassment against the accused is not sufficient to establish the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code." This ruling underscores the necessity for the prosecution to prove a direct and proximate act of instigation or conspiracy that left the deceased with no option but to end their life, thereby preventing the misuse of Section 306 IPC in cases of marital discord.

Reservation Benefits Tied to State of Origin

In an important clarification on reservation policy, the Court in Vinay Sahotra v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others held that reservation benefits under the Backward Class (BC) category can only be claimed in an individual's State of origin, not their State of birth or subsequent residence. This decision standardises the application of reservation policies, preventing forum shopping for benefits and reinforcing the principle that such affirmative action is linked to the historical social disadvantages within a specific state's geographical and social context.

---

Judicial Oversight and Public Interest

Demonstrating its role as a constitutional watchdog, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu cognizance of several pressing public issues, highlighting governmental failures. These actions included flagging an acute shortage of teachers in Haryana government schools, addressing the non-payment of honorariums to nearly 50,000 Anganwadi workers in Punjab, and staying a demolition drive allegedly carried out without proper notice under the NDPS Act.

These interventions, along with rulings on the Haryana ADA exam syllabus change and admissions to unauthorised courses, signal the Court's commitment to ensuring executive accountability and protecting citizens' rights, particularly in education and social welfare.

This active judicial week serves as a powerful reminder of the courts' indispensable role in interpreting law, safeguarding individual rights, and ensuring that governance adheres to the principles of justice and fairness. The pronouncements are set to have a lasting impact on legal discourse and litigation across service, tax, and administrative law domains.