Overview The Supreme Court on 1 April 2026 ordered the Union of India to pay ₹25,000 as costs for filing a frivolous SLP . The case concerned the dismissal of a CISF constable who had been reinstated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court with 25 % back wages. Key Developments The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP, calling the Union’s challenge “unnecessary” and imposing costs of ₹25,000. Justice Nagarathna highlighted that the Union is the largest litigant in the country, contributing to chronic pendency in the apex court. The Court reiterated that once a High Court finds a punishment to be disproportionate and sets aside the order, the matter should not be re‑litigated before the Supreme Court. The Union’s counsel argued for removal of the awarded back wages on the basis of “no work, no pay”, but the Court rejected this claim. Important Facts The constable had served for about ten years and faced two charges: (i) unauthorised absence for 11 days during sanctioned medical leave, and (ii) alleged misconduct for facilitating his brother’s wedding. The High Court found the dismissal to be a disproportionate punishment and reinstated him with continuity of service, also directing payment of 25 % back wages for the six‑year pendency of the case. UPSC Relevance This judgment touches upon several core UPSC topics: Judicial Review & Supreme Court Powers (GS2) : Use of Article 136, the Court’s discretion to grant or deny special leave, and its role in curbing frivolous litigation. Administrative Law & Service Discipline (GS2) : Principles of proportionality in disciplinary action and the importance of adhering to procedural fairness. Public Administration & Governance (GS4) : The impact of excessive government litigation on judicial efficiency and the need for responsible legal strategy. Labour & Service Welfare (GS3) : Concepts of back wages and employee rights during disciplinary proceedings. Way Forward Legal advisors to the Union are expected to adopt a more judicious approach, seeking internal review before approaching the apex court. Strengthening guidelines for when a High Court’s relief is final can reduce unnecessary petitions, thereby easing pendency . For civil servants, the case underscores the need for proportional disciplinary measures and the protection of service continuity when procedural lapses occur.