25-Aug-2026

Status on Notional Increment Generalization:
Comrades GS SNPWA discussed this issue with DDG (Establishment) / DOT today who informed that file has been sent to concerned JS (A) / DOT, dealing with BSNL/ MTNL issues, for receiving the necessary inputs regarding VRS Scheme etc etc to help facilitate taking of decision for Generalization. Thereafter, after getting necessary inputs, the file will be processed by the Establishment Section and sent to the competent authority (Secretary / Telecom.) for taking final view. However, keeping in view facts of the issue, DDG (E) sounded quite optimistic about positive resolution of the issue, assuring that he will pursue the issue vigorously once required inputs are received from JS (A)/ DOT.
Comrades had further detailed discussion with DDG (E) / DOT regarding eligibility of VRS for Notional Increment on the grounds of terms and conditions of VRS. DDG (E) is of the firm view that this benefit has to be and will be definitely extended to VRS on the basis of Judgment of Supreme Court. However, seeking view of JS( A) etc etc is part of the process to be observed before the file is sent to Secretary (T) for approval.
After sending the following input to DDG (E),
"Respected Sir The fact that VRS are not eligible for Notional Increment since the terms and conditions of VRS do not make them eligible for this benefit has been adequately highlighted by U.O.I in Supreme Court and by BSNL in various High Courts and Tribunals. Hon. Supreme Court / Hon. High Courts have rejected this argument of UOI/ BSNL by upholding that no other condition will prevail to exclude Eligible Retirees, including VRS, from getting this benefit. This is for your kind information sir. Regards." he was extremely nice enough to call back immediately and thereafter we had a detailed discussion on the issue.
DDG (E) is of the opinion that come what may, this benefit has to be extended to VRS. Only option is to file RA in Hon. Supreme Court which will be dismissed.

25-Aug-2026

Dear Comrades As expected WP filed by NCCPA in Hon. Supreme Court, challenging Validation Act, 25, has been relisted for 25th Sept, 2026.

25-Aug-2026

Hon.Justice Nagarathna of Hon.Supreme Court matches Late Chief Justices of Supreme Court like Krishna Iyer, Desai, P.N.Bhagwati, Chandrachud ( Senior), Verma etc etc in so far as their Towering Stature, Uncompromising Professional Integrity, holding on firmly to and safeguarding the Basic Structure of the Constitution in an impeccable manner, is concerned.
It is a very painful and sad state of affairs that Hon.Supreme Court is very fast getting depleted of Justices of the Calibre and Stature of Justice Nagarathna and people are very fast losing their confidence and trust in Hon. Supreme Court.
Following observation is a testimony to and corroborates this painful fact.
"The Hon. Supreme Court should not have discarded a workable test on 'industry'. On August 20, a nine-judge Bench of the Hon. Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment on the correctness of the ruling in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa (BWSSB) (1978). In that judgment, Hon. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer had laid down what was called the "Triple Test" on what counts as an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947 (ID Act). Three conditions were to be met for an industry - a systematic activity, employer - employee cooperation, and production/distribution of goods and services to satisfy human wants other than those that are purely religious or spiritual. Profit motive was irrelevant; what mattered in this determination was the nature of the activity, and only "sovereign functions" stood outside it. A five-judge Bench in State of U.P. vs Jai Bir Singh (2005) raised a doubt about this definition and a seven-judge Bench sent it to the current nine-judge Bench. This Bench, led by Hon. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, left the Triple Test standing for all pending disputes under the older ID Act, which was repealed on November 21, 2025 when the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IRC) came into force. However, a majority of the nine-judge Bench also ruled that BWSSB will not be a "sheet anchor" for interpreting Section 2(p) of the IRC. That is a mistake. In her dissenting opinion, Hon.Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that the reference itself was unnecessary and that the Triple Test requires no interference - a view shared by three other judges. Her reasoning is compelling. Since 1978, and particularly after the liberalisation and privatisation reforms of 1991, a far higher number of workers have moved to the private sector, out of the security of public employment. An expansive definition of industry, as entailed in the Triple Test, is therefore even more necessary now as a bulwark for the worker. Yet, Section 2(p) of the IRC does not move away from Hon. Justice Krishna Iyer’s Triple Test formula in BWSSB and reproduces much of its essence. It is therefore difficult to understand why BWSSB has to be set aside when Section 2(p) itself comes up for interpretation. The Triple Test was also not merely a pro-labour device. An expansive definition of industry brought with it not just the ID Act's protections but also its restrictions - for instance, a regulated route to retrenchment and closure for the employer, and a bar on workers striking at will. In essence, the Triple Test allowed for industrial peace rather than worker welfare alone. Severing that principle from the IRC, as the majority has done, cuts away the interpretive framework that allowed such disputes to be resolved. With the essence of the Triple Test carried into Section 2(p), it is now incumbent upon courts and tribunals to ensure that a change of statute is not read as a change of intent even if the majority judgment has removed the anchor to do so."

23-Aug-2026

Dear Comrades,
Highest Judicial Institution of the Country, Supreme Court, has, lost its spine completely and is functioining under the dictat and thumb of the Govt.
This was clearly evident when the SLP of S 30 that was listed and was to be heard on 21st August, 25, was relisted for 25th Sept, 26, on simple mentioning by the AGI, without the Petitioners (S 30) even being informed or present.
Similarly, Writ Petition filed by NCCPA against Validation Act, 25, which is listed for 25th August, 25, is surely going to be relisted for 25th Sept, whether Petitioners are present or not. That never matters these days for the Judiciary.
. For them, it is of paramount significance that U.O.I is present, heard and duly accommodated. This is the trend setter in the Judiciary these days. Thus, Writ Petition filed by NCCPA in Supreme Court and listed for hearing on 25th August, 26, is surely going to be relisted on 25th Sept, 26, whether Petitioners (NCCPA) are present or not. That has no meaning and is irrelevant
- G. L. Jogi

23-Aug-2026

CGHS's Circular on false circulation of a notice regarding closure of CGHS WCs from 27 to 31st Aug 2026.
View CGHS OM