List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti of the Supreme Court, in Union of India & Others v. Sunil Kumar Rai & Others (2026), dismissed the Union Government's appeal and held that a Central Pay Commission recommendation cannot be construed so as to deny an employee a legitimate benefit by importing additional conditions that the Commission itself never prescribed. The Court upheld the Delhi High Court's direction extending Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) benefits to Junior Engineers of the Border Roads Organisation.

What was the Background of Union of India & Others v. Sunil Kumar Rai & Others (2026) Case ? 

• The respondents originally joined the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) in subordinate engineering cadres and were subsequently redesignated as Junior Engineers following a cadre merger. 
• After completing 4 years of continuous service at Level 8 (Grade Pay ₹4,800), they became eligible for Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 (Grade Pay ₹5,400) as per the Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendations. 
• The Government denied the NFU benefit on the ground that only direct recruits to Level 8 were entitled to it — a restriction that found no basis in the Pay Commission's recommendations. 
• The Delhi High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition and directed extension of Level 9 benefit to them. 
• The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union's appeal, with the judgment authored by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, making the following key observations: 

• The Government unjustifiably withheld the NFU benefit by introducing a condition — that only direct recruits to Level 8 were eligible — which finds no place in the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations. 
• The plain reading of the Pay Commission's recommendations establishes that upon completion of four years of service in Level 8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis, a Junior Engineer is entitled to NFU — without any entry-level condition. 
• Insisting on an "entry-level" requirement at Grade Pay ₹4,800 would effectively deny a benefit recommended by the Seventh Pay Commission, which the State has no authority to do unilaterally. 
• The denial was held to be without valid reasons, and the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order.

What is the Pay Commission? 

• A body set up by the Central Government to review and recommend changes to the salary structure of government employees. 
• Functions under the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. 
• Constituted every 10 years; the first Pay Commission was set up in 1946 — a total of seven commissions have been formed since Independence. 
• The 7th Pay Commission was set up in 2014; recommendations came into effect in 2016 and currently govern salaries of central government employees and pensioners. 
• Government acceptance is not mandatory — recommendations may be accepted or rejected. 
• The 8th Pay Commission has been approved, set to benefit 4.5 million central government employees and 6.8 million pensioners, including defence personnel.

Why is the Pay Commission Required? 

• Salary Revision — Periodically assesses pay scales, allowances, and benefits, factoring in inflation, cost of living, and market rates to ensure fair and competitive salaries. 
• Public Finance Impact — Recommendations significantly affect government expenditure given the large number of employees covered. 
• Ripple Effect — Influences salary structures in state governments and the private sector, which often use CPC recommendations as a reference benchmark. 
• Social Equality — Promotes pay parity and income justice by reducing disparities across sections of society. 
• Allowances Review — Covers not just basic pay but also housing, medical, travel allowances, and other perks. 

 Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit of the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Shobha Kanwar v. Narpat Singh (2026), held that a divorced wife's right to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is an independent and distinct right — not contingent upon the dependency of children — and cannot be negated merely because the wife has adult, earning sons. The Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court from ₹25 lakh to ₹40 lakh.

What was the Background of Shobha Kanwar v. Narpat Singh (2026) Case? 

• The marriage between the parties was solemnized in April 1994. They separated in 2009, and the wife filed for divorce in 2015. 
• The Family Court at Jodhpur dissolved the marriage by judgment dated August 29, 2025, directing the husband — a Specialist Medical Officer — to pay ₹25 lakh as permanent alimony. 
• Neither party challenged the divorce decree itself. 
• Two cross-appeals were filed before the Rajasthan High Court: the wife sought enhancement of alimony to ₹2 crore, while the husband challenged the award as excessive, contending that his adult, able-bodied sons were legally obliged to support their mother.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key findings: 

• Section 25 is not subsistence-oriented alone — its scope extends to securing dignified sustenance and long-term financial stability for the economically disadvantaged spouse. 
• Adult sons' earning capacity is not a bar — the majority and earning capacity of sons may at best bear on the quantum of alimony, but cannot negate the wife's basic entitlement, which is a distinct and independent right arising from dissolution of marriage. 
• Burden of proof on husband — the burden to prove the wife's independent and sufficient income lies upon the husband; no cogent evidence was found establishing income adequate to maintain her at the standard of the matrimonial home. 
• Husband's financial capacity established — based on his own affidavit, a stable monthly income of approximately ₹2 lakhs was noted, along with self-acquired and ancestral immovable assets. 
• Residential security is a recognised right — the wife's lack of independent residential accommodation was a significant factor; securing a modest dwelling is a well-recognised facet of maintenance jurisprudence. 
• Alimony is not enrichment — the wife's claim of ₹2 crore was rejected as disproportionate; the Court stressed that alimony must reflect a balanced, realistic, and equitable determination, neither overburdening the husband nor leaving the wife financially vulnerable. 
• Final Decision: 
  • Considering the long duration of marriage (15 years) and separation (16 years), the wife's lack of independent income and residential security, the husband's stable earning capacity, and rising inflationary trends, the Court enhanced permanent alimony from ₹25 lakh to ₹40 lakh. 
  • The husband was directed to pay within six months, and to continue paying monthly maintenance of ₹45,000 in the interim.

What is Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 

About: 

• Section 25 is a crucial provision addressing permanent alimony and maintenance between spouses after divorce or separation. 
• Its primary objective is to ensure financial protection and support for a spouse after dissolution of marriage, taking into account the economic circumstances and needs of both parties. 
• It represents a progressive approach to post-divorce financial arrangements, recognising the economic vulnerabilities that may arise upon marriage dissolution and providing a legal mechanism for their protection. 

Key Provisions: 

• Scope of Maintenance Order — The court has broad discretionary powers to grant maintenance at the time of passing a divorce decree or at any subsequent time. Either spouse may apply. Maintenance may be awarded as a gross lump-sum, or as monthly/periodical payments, for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant. 
• Factors Considered — When determining maintenance, the court considers the respondent's income and property, the applicant's income and property, the conduct of both parties, and other circumstances of the case. 
• Security for Maintenance — The court may secure maintenance payments by placing a charge on the respondent's immovable property, if necessary. 

Modification Provisions: 

• Section 25(2) — Change in Circumstances — Either party may apply for variation, modification, or rescission of the maintenance order upon a significant change in the circumstances of either party. The court has discretion to modify the order as it deems just. 
• Section 25(3) — Remarriage or Conduct — The court may vary, modify, or rescind the order if the recipient spouse remarries; or, in the case of a wife, she has not remained chaste; or, in the case of a husband, he has had sexual intercourse outside wedlock.