Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Recovery from retired employee/ due to retire within 1 year -- Excess payment was made by way of an increment which the petitioner was not entitled -- No recovery should be made from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within 1 year of the order of recovery -- Respondent has effected recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner -- Respondent shall refund the said amount within 2 months -- Impugned order quashed and writ petition allowed. Rafiq Masih’s case (2015) 4 SCC 334 & Tara Chand’s case 2013 (4) SCT 251 (P&H) relied.

(Para 2, 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Regularization of service -- Discrimination -- Parity -- Delay and laches – Plea of petitioners is based on discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- If there is an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India then petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. K. Thimmappa and others’s case, 2001 (2) SCC 259, relied -- Similarly situate counterparts had been appointed earlier with respect to whom parity sought, deserves to be allowed -- Respondent-Corporation will have to uniformly regularize contractual appointees after one year --  Petitioners are held entitled for regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date.

(Para 23-29)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 20 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Closing of evidence in suit – One opportunity to lead evidence -- Petitioner admits that there is some inaction on her part but proving of the Will is necessary -- Petitioner-defendant No.1 wants to examine only two witnesses, Lambardar and Record Clerk of DC Office -- Petitioner should not be non-suited merely on procedural technicalities -- No prejudice would be caused to other side if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead remaining evidence -- Petition disposed with a direction to the trial Court to give one opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 2-7)

Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 2, Chapter VIII, Rule 8.35 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Family pension – Karewa Marriage with Dewar – Effect of – Petitioner solemnized Kareva marriage with his brother-in-law (Devar) -- On request, the family pension was transferred in the name of son – Second husband also passed away and petitioner requested to restore her family pension -- Respondent-department denied family pension to the petitioner because she got re-married and stopped of her son because he got job – In Amrit Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur’s case 2014 (2) PLR 192 benefit of family pension was extended to widow of a deceased employee though said lady solemnized marriage with his brother-in-law -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent-authorities to reconsider claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within three months.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Delay in retiral benefits – Interest thereupon -- Once, the service book of the petitioner was not complete and her second ACP was released after her retirement, the question whether the petitioner failed to fill the form or not will not disentitle the petitioner for the grant of benefit of interest on the delayed release of payments -- Petitioner held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum on the payments, which have been released to her after a delay of two months of her retirement from the date the amount became due till the actual payments released to her.

(Para 7-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25, 29 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of  India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 260 grams of heroin -- Marginally over and above the commercial quantity i.e., 250 grams and both the accused-petitioners were found travelling in car belongs to the other co-accused granted anticipatory bail – Petitioner in custody for 1 year, 2 months and 24 days --  After framing of charges no single prosecution witness has been examined by the prosecution, despite lapse of 6 months -- Examination of 10 prosecution witnesses is rightly to take long time -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said Article also provides the right for speedy trial and otherwise also bail is a rule and jail is an exception -- Pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-petitioners cannot be a predicament to consider the case for regular bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-11)

A. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22D -- Permanent Lok Adalat – Public Utility Services – Medi-claim insurance policy -- A mere mentioning in the prescription by the doctor in his clinical assessment details about the previous history of similar complaint would not amount to establishing a concealment -- Merely because certain symptoms are asked for before a treatment is extended and response to the same would not amount to establishing the fact that the insured had knowledge of his past medical condition or previous history -- No document on record to suggest that the insured had been taking any medication and/or had been subjected to any treatment at any time prior to him securing a medical insurance policy with the petitioner-Insurance company – Petitioner-Insurance company having issued the Senior Citizens Red Carpet Insurance policy would be presumed to be fully aware of the risks that it under writes and having opted to waive of the requirement of undergoing a pre-medical check-up was thus conscious -- Award passed by PLA affirmed.

(Para 10-13)

B. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22D --  Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Writ jurisdiction -- Medi-claim insurance policy -- Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) has to decide the matters as per guidelines laid down in Section 22 (D) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 guided by the principle of equity, fairness, principles of natural justice, other principle of justice and objectivity -- If a conclusion drawn by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) is sustainable on a meaningful reading and an interpretation of the evidence brought before it, such exercise of discretion would not normally be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction.

(Para 12)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Death by electrocution – Compensation – Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat – Bar to claim compensation as per Policy – Petitioner concedes that the application u/s 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was not maintainable before the said authority – Same cannot be construed as a Bar on the respondents against considering the claim of the petitioners as per the policy applicable then -- Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit an application before the respondent authorities for seeking disbursement of compensation in terms of applicable policy.

(Para 4-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Conviction u/s 307 IPC -- Retiral benefits – Interest -- Once the punishment of stoppage of pension was set aside in appeal, the petitioner was entitled to receive all the retiral benefits and the gratuity and regular pension was required to be paid to him and could not have been withheld under the garb of pendency of the writ petition -- Since the petitioner attained superannuation in the year 2004, the gratuity and other retiral benefits which shall be released in his favour  would also carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(Para 5-11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Daily wager -- Family pension -- Family pension is only admissible in case, a Government employee, who was working on a regular post and had a lien on the said post, either dies while in service or to a spouse of a pensioner -- Once on the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner was working on a daily wage basis, the claim that the petitioner is entitled for family pension is contrary to the Rules governing the service hence, the same cannot be accepted.

(Para 15)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Family pension – Daily wager -- Deemed regularisation – Husband of the petitioner never raised any grievance with regard to the regularization of his services during his service career, filing the present petition after 20 years of death of an employee with the prayer that the said employee should be treated as a regular employee by deemed regularization of his services so as to grant the consequential benefit of family pension to the petitioner, cannot be accepted -- Family pension can only be claimed in case the employee concerned was a regular employee either at the time of the death or was a pensioner at the time of death.

(Para 16)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Living relationship – Life and liberty -- Major boy but of non-marriageable age/ 18 years, 5 months old -- Petitioners want to marry each other -- Parents/relatives of girl forcibly want to marry her with a boy in other community -- Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India -- Senior Superintendent of Police directed to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty, if deemed fit.

(Para 11-13)

A. Punjab Pre-mature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Life sentence till death – Pre-mature release -- Order of the trial Court in sentencing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life, with a rider to extend to full life, is clearly in violation of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan, 2016 (7) SCC 192 -- Such a sentence can be passed either by High Court or by Hon’ble Supreme Court only -- State authorities are not debarred from considering the case of the petitioner for premature release in the light of its policy dated 08.08.2011.

(Para 21-28)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 426, 427 – Murder -- Life sentence – Subsequent sentence – Concurrent running of Sentence -- Petitioner is already undergoing life imprisonment, therefore, even if she has been convicted and sentenced subsequently, the subsequent sentence is to run concurrently with the earlier sentence of life imprisonment.

(Para 34-36)

C. Constitution of India, Article 161, 226, 227 -- Punjab Pre-mature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Murder -- Life sentence till death by Trial Court – Appeal against conviction pending – Pre-mature release – Petitioner/ lady has already undergone 17 years 2 months and 20 days of actual sentence (Total sentence including remission 22 years 7 months) -- Conduct of the convict during the last five years is to be taken into account -- Jail offence was committed more than 9 years ago -- Conviction and jail offence in question cannot be the reason to withhold the case of the petitioner for premature release -- Respondent-authorities directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner -- Till the decision is taken by the competent authority regarding premature release of the petitioner as per this order, she be released on interim bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the ld. CJM concerned -- Order is subject to the final outcome of the Petitioner’s appeal.

(Para 19, 37-45)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Withdrawal of technical pay scale after death of employee – Permissibility of -- It is a settled principle of law that no order can be passed against a dead person -- Dead employee is not available to defend himself/herself -- Even if any proceedings have been initiated against an employee and before the culmination of the said proceedings, the employee died, the said proceedings abate -- Any show cause notice pending against the late husband of the petitioner for the withdrawal of the pay scale, abate upon the death of the husband.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Termination of service without inquiry – It is only under a few specified circumstances that inquiry may be dispensed with, which are either on account of conviction of an official or on account of it being impracticable to hold an inquiry or where the President or the Governor is satisfied that it is not in the interest of security of the State to hold such an inquiry -- No circumstances discerned from the facts which could justify dispensation of holding of any inquiry before dismissing the petitioner from service -- Impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police dismissing the petitioner while dispensing with the inquiry is totally unsustainable -- Petition allowed, orders dismissing the petitioner from service set aside with the direction that the petitioner be reinstated in service and given all consequential benefits.

(Para 6-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 20 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Closing of evidence in suit – One opportunity to conclude evidence -- 10 effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner-defendant No.1 but only three witnesses were examined -- On a couple of occasions, the Bar was abstaining from work -- Trial Court did not commit any illegality in closing the evidence – However, matters should be decided on merits and parties should not be non-suited on technicalities -- One opportunity granted to the petitioner-defendant No.1 to lead his evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff – Revision allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ petition -- Appointment of constable (GD) -- Impleadment of CISF as party – Direction to treat the height of petitioner as 170.2 cm and allow him to join the selection process -- Since Union of India & Ors. were party in the writ petition and CISF is under the Central Government and also the fact that Staff Selection Commission is the recruiting agency for conducting recruitment for the post in question, therefore, CISF is not the necessary party in the writ petition – Application of CISF for impleadment as well as review dismissed – Two weeks’ time granted to comply the directions.

(Para 11)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Lowering down of ACR – Non-communication of -- Promotion -- Rule of Natural justice -- Lowering down of the ACRs of the petitioner from “very good” to “average” would have to be conveyed to the petitioner giving the reasons for the same – It would require the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after conveying the said remarks – Un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be taken into consideration while considering the case of an employee for promotion -- Adverse remarks remained un-communicated upto the date the promotion exercise was conducted -- Same, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration for denying the petitioner her promotion.

(Para 12, 13)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Contractual employee – Right to be regularised -- Whether by working for a long period of time on contractual basis, the petitioners have acquired any vested legal right to be appointed in the respective posts on regular basis -- Court do not find any legal right in their favour to be absorbed.

(Para 3, 4)

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), Section 3, 4, 5, 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Illegal construction on government road/ public property – Expedite eviction – Writ petition -- Gram Panchayat filed eviction petition against 26 illegal occupants – Writ petition disposed of with direction to DDPO-cum-Collector to conclude the proceedings as initiated expeditiously preferably, within three months.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 310 -- Termination of services – Continuing on post due to interim order – Promotion thereafter -- Petitioner continued to function as temporary Collection Peon on the strength of an interim order passed in Special Appeal which was ultimately dismissed -- Therefore, any promotion given to the petitioner consequent to his continuance in service on the strength of the interim order would automatically fall to the ground once the Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the termination order attains finality.

(Para 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- void ab initio Appointment – Continuation in service -- Right to salary -- Once the appointment of the appellant had been declared illegal and void ab initio, and was cancelled by the Director vide order dated 18.10.2001, the appellant could not legally continue in service thereafter, unless that cancellation order was set aside – Order never challenged -- Thus, the appellant had no legal right to continue in service -- No claim for payment of salary could be made for any period.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41, Rule 5, Section 5, 96 -- Appeal – Non-decisioning on stay application – No order passed on the stay application by learned Lower Appellate Court – In execution warrant of possession has been ordered to be issued against the property of the petitioner(s) – In the given circumstances, learned Lower Appellate Court shall look into the matter and dispose of the application for grant of stay, expeditiously, if not the main appeal.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship – Adult females – Petitioners are above 18 years of age -- Their claim of fondness for each other and living together in a live-in relationship prima facie does not violate any provision of law in force -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together -- Directions given to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners and to depute atleast two female police officials for their protection for two weeks.

(Para 3-5)

A. Abkari Act (1 of 1077), Section 8  -- Investigation officer -- Simply because the person who detected the commission of the offence, is the one who filed the report or investigated, such an investigation cannot be said to be bad in law.

(Para 21)

B. Abkari Act (1 of 1077), Section 8  -- Police official witnesses – No independent witness -- Law is well settled that if the evidence of a police officer is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on firm ground -- Testimonies of official witnesses can nay be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined.

(Para 22-26)

C. Abkari Act (1 of 1077), Section 8  -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Delay in producing Contraband before the Magistrate – Day after the arrest of the Appellant, 2nd October, 2003 was a holiday and therefore the contraband seized was, upon directions produced before the concerned Magistrate on the next working day, that being, 3 October 2003 -- This being the uncontroverted position, the production of the seized Arrack cannot be said to be delayed.

(Para 27)

D. Abkari Act (1 of 1077), Section 8  -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Delay in completion of investigation – Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained -- Inordinate delay has been taken as presumptive proof of prejudice, but in particular cases where the accused is in custody -- Accused was released on bail on 21st October 2003 -- Hence, the presumption of prejudice will not apply in the instant facts.

(Para 28-30)

E. Abkari Act (1 of 1077), Section 8  -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Dealy in investigation/ trial – Sentence reduced to 3 months -- Considering the facts that the offence in question is dated 1st October 2003; the final report after delayed investigation was submitted on 17th April 2006, appellant was convicted on 3rd November 2008, and that more than 20 years have passed since the commission of the offence, sentence modified, appellant to serve a period of three months, simple imprisonment.

(Para 31-33)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Short delivery of oil -- Cancellation of petrol pump – Termination of dealership agreement – Challenge to -- At the time of inspection, three times delivery of 5 Ltrs. oil was made and each time short delivery was found -- Manufacturer of the equipment has confirmed tampering of equipment – Contention that minor penalty could be imposed, cannot be accepted because it is a case of tampering with dispensing unit  -- In disciplinary matters, the High Court cannot interfere unless and until there is mala fide or violation of prescribed procedure or violation of principles of natural justice or the findings recorded are apparently either based upon no evidence or contrary to the evidence – No interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India warranted – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 15-20)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309, 311 -- Disciplinary proceedings against deceased employee – Recovery from leave encashment – Permissibility of -- Before the disciplinary proceedings could reach to its conclusion, the husband of the petitioner died -- Continuing the disciplinary proceedings after his death so as to hold him guilty of the allegations and to pass an order of punishment so as to recover money, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside --  Order against a dead employee is void – Petition allowed, respondents directed to release the amount of Rs.3,14,460/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till the actual payment of the same.

(Para 4, 12-15)

Haryana Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(5a) -- Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Surplus area -- Letter/ Instructions qua the land of the petitioners issuing general directions to the Naib Tehsildar to change the mutation in the revenue record in favour of the State Government on the basis of an order passed by Prescribed Authority-cum-Collector – Petitioner submitted that the order already set aside and reviewed – Writ petition disposed of with direction to the Deputy Commissioner to treat writ petition as representation and take necessary decision thereon as per law within a period of four weeks.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Run-away couple – Life and liberty – Police protection -- Boy is not of marriageable age – Claimed to have married -- Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or a major -- Mere fact that the petitioners are not of marriageable age would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Commissioner of Police and Station House Officer to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the petitioners and complaints/ representation and if deemed fit, to take appropriate steps to provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty in accordance with law.

(Para 10-13)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 34 -- Interest on arrears of salary/ pension -- Once, a similarly situated employee allowed the benefit of interest by the Department, the same needs to be extended to the mother of the petitioner also on the arrears of salary/pension -- Denial will amount to discrimination, which cannot be permitted – Petitioner held entitled for interest on the arrears which have already been released to the mother of the petitioner @ 6% per annum from the date the payment became due till the actual disbursement of the same.

(Para 6, 9-11)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Sanction of mutation – Writ petition -- Petitioner has submitted application before the Tehsildar but no action has been taken on the same -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Tehsildar to decide the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Enquiry against Sarpanch – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner/ Lambardar of the village has filed complaints against the Sarpanch for committing irregularities – Submission that prima facie case is there, however, no action has been taken on the complaints filed by the petitioner – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent to expedite the enquiry initiated and conclude the same expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within two months.

(Para 2-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Re-imbursement of Medical treatment expenses – Treatment at Government Hospital -- Total expenditure incurred on the treatment of petitioner is Rs.4,17,004/- -- Respondent-Department cannot restrict the reimbursement to Rs.1,10,044/- -- Implant which was used on recommendations of the Doctors, who conducted the surgery cost Rs.2,75,000/-, the said amount incurred by the petitioner cannot be deducted to mean that only Rs.45,000/- will be reimbursed -- Petition allowed and the respondents directed to reimburse the total medical bills submitted by the petitioner as verified by the Medical Superintendent of the Medical College.

(Para 8-12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail -- Delay in concluding the trial – Life and liberty -- Sometimes, the trial gets delayed without any fault on the part of the accused and this violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, because every accused has also a right to speedy justice -- Sometimes, when the trial gets delayed unnecessarily, it is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be detained in jail for an indefinite period.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder -- Regular bail -- Delay in trial – No doubt petitioner is facing a serious charge, but that, by itself, should not deter the Court from allowing the bail application, when there is no serious contention of the State that the accused, if enlarged on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence -- Petitioner is languishing in jail since 15.12.2019 i.e over 03 years and 07 months and the prosecution had only examined 02 witnesses out of total 19 witnesses -- Most material witness, complainant has already been examined as PW-1 and there are no chances of tampering with the prosecution evidence -- Without commenting on the merits of the case, the bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 136 – Special Leave to Appeal – Alternative remedy -- Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances -- Question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave -- Provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation -- When the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, the Court should not entertain petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed.

(Para 24)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005),  Section 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Domestic violence case – Speedy disposal – Case of 2019 -- Petitioner is a senior citizen of 82 years of age, falls in a distinctive category, qua which directions have been given by High Court, from time to time, for expeditious disposal of the matters relating to the senior citizens i.e. who are 65 years of age or above – Ld. Lower Court shall remain sensitized about the said instructions and proceed further to decide the application for interim relief and to hear the arguments on the application on 04.08.2023 and if not possible to hear the arguments on the said date, the same shall be heard and decided, within a period of one week thereafter – Ld. Lower Court shall ensure expeditious disposal of the main petition.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Government accommodation -- Repair/replace the roof of House – Contention that on account of recent rains, upper layer of the roof of the house has fallen and entire roof can fall at any time and thus, there is imminent danger to the life – Writ Petition disposed of with direction to the competent authority/ Government authority to consider and if case is found to be meritorious then to take appropriate action in accordance with law as expeditiously and if the authority is of the opinion that the averments made by the petitioner are not found to be meritorious then a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a period of two weeks.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Compassionate appointment to married daughter -- Source of earning of husband of the petitioner would have no reason for consideration while considering the application of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, respondents directed to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, after death of her father -- If otherwise found suitable, appointment ordered to be offered to her.

(Para 6-8)

Constitution of  India, Article 16, 226 -- Appointment of PGT Teacher -- Reservation -- Firstly all the open category seats shall be filled then the individual category of any candidate and it is thereafter reserved category seats shall be filled – It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has taken any additional advantage of being belonged to the SC (R&O) category – Held, merit was required to be placed in the general category.

(Para 11, 13)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 226 -- Appointment of Extension Lecturers from retired employee/ non-retired employee – Discrimination in pay – Sustainability of – Petitioners/ Retired employee are fully eligible for being appointed as extension lecturers and they are performing the same duties -- Held, payment of lesser remuneration to the retired teachers/petitioners amounts to practising discrimination against them and treating equals as unequals which cannot be permitted -- Respondents cannot shrink from the duty to pay equally for the same work done by them in compliance of the Constitutional mandate of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 – Writ petition allowed.  

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 226 -- Policy guidelines regarding engaging Eligible Extension Lecturers in Govt. Colleges purely on work requirement basis, dated 04.03.2020, Clause 11 -- Clause/paragraph 11 of the Policy dated 04.03.2020 is illegal being irrational and arbitrary – Clause 11 quashed.

(Para 6, 8)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 9, 16, 23 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Letter patents Appeal -- Death of senior citizen – Benefits under Senior citizen Act stands abated on his death -- As senior citizen/ respondent No.2, at whose instance the Maintenance/ Appellate Tribunal had passed the impugned order, had since expired, so the proceedings in the case are rendered infructuous/ otiose as senior citizen's right to seek benefits under the special statute abated on his death -- Parties/ legal heirs of respondent No.2 are given the liberty to avail the civil remedy available under law.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 239-AA, Article 239-AA(7)(b) --- National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 – A primary reading of Article 239-AA(7)(a) indicates that the law shall not alter the existing constitutional structure envisaged for NCTD in Article 239-AA -- However, a prima facie reading of Article 239-AA(7)(b) denotes that the law enacted under Article 239-AA(7)(a) could alter the existing constitutional structure of governance of NCTD -- Apparent conflict between the two clauses on the nature of law making power vis-à-vis NCTD’s constitutional structure of governance needs to be resolved -- Following questions refer to a Constitution Bench:

(i) What are the contours of the power of Parliament to enact a law under Article 239-AA(7); and

(ii) Whether Parliament in the exercise of its power under Article 239-AA(7) can abrogate the constitutional principles of governance for NCTD.

(Para 15, 16)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ of mandamus -- Acquisition of land -- Petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 1500 square yards, only 1000 square yards acquired -- Now petitioner is sought to be dispossessed, gave representation – Estate Officer directed to examine the representation and take a decision and pass a speaking order within four weeks after examining the necessary revenue records and the acquisition record after giving notice to petitioner to put in an appearance and submit all necessary documents in support of his claim -- Till the decision, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.

(Para 1-7)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 22 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Suspension of Sarpanch – Authorized Sarpanch -- Sitting Sarpanch suspended and out of 11 Panches, 8 Panches, i.e. petitioners No.2 to 8 are with petitioner No.1 – Petitioners submits that, petitioner No.1 be appointed as the authorised Panch in view of Section 22 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Writ petition disposed of with a direction DDPO to decide the representation given by petitioners in accordance with law preferably within one month.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 14 -- Retired employee as Enquiry officer – Permissibility of -- Disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority -- It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant -- Urged that disciplinary authority had not recorded specific reasons why a retired government servant was appointed to act as an inquiry officer – Argument rejected as a belated afterthought -- This submission should not be entertained before this Court, post the inquiry etc.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Extension of period of Parole – Petitioner released on parole -- Suffered a fracture on his right ankle joint – Held, jurisdiction at this stage not exercisable by High Court, but is exercisable only by the Competent Authority -- Review jurisdiction exercisable only in case a declining order is made by the Competent Authority -- Prayer is mis-constituted, and, is liable to be rejected – However, one week protection from step into prison given and one week time granted to move application before competent authority for extension of parole, then on such application valid speaking order shall be expeditiously recorded.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 – Refusal of Passport, travel documents etc. -- Show cause notice -- Opportunity of hearing – Reasons for denial -- Right to travel abroad is part of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India -- State can deny right to travel subject to compliance of safeguard in the form of show cause notice, opportunity of hearing and order disclosing reasons for the denial.

(Para 10)

B. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 19(1)(a), (g), 21 -- Refusal of Passport, travel documents etc. -- Umpteen number of persons are travelling abroad for the sake of business or employment -- If these persons are mechanically denied passport or permission to visit abroad, without allaying fear to flee from justice, not only would deprive them from their right to earn livelihood but also violate their fundamental right to freedom of business and profession, guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India -- Denial of passport not only amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 & 21 but also freedom of speech, business and trade contemplated by Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution unless and until procedure prescribed by law is followed.

(Para 26)

C. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6(2) (f), (e) -- Right to Passport -- Registration of FIR – Criminal trial – Conviction – Acquittal -- Effect of – Held:

i) Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of Passport Act, 1967 is inapplicable to post conviction or post acquittal proceedings.

ii) As soon as a person is convicted or acquitted, he would be governed by Clause (e) of Section 6(2) of 1967 Act.

iii) Notification dated 25.8.1993 is applicable to criminal proceedings pending before trial court and as per instructions dated 10.10.2019, mere registration of FIR is not sufficient whereas a case should be registered before Court and Court must have taken cognizance.

iv) Clause (e) of Section 6(2) can be invoked if an applicant; within 5 years preceding the date of application, for the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude has been sentenced to imprisonment of not less than 2 years.

v) High Court is not criminal court in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act.

(Para 27)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Promotion as Assistant Engineer (Civil) – Pendency of criminal case -- FIR u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Result of the petitioner kept in sealed cover – Closure report by Police in FIR – Held, sealed cover procedure was wrongly adopted by the respondents – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to open the sealed cover and in case the petitioner is found eligible for promotion, all consequential benefits shall be given to him from the due date.

(Para 3-5)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Trial as Adult -- Bail – Applicability of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act -- Held, appellant/CCL was directed to be tried like an adult, but still he remains a juvenile in conflict with law and can never be denied the benefit of Section 12 of the “Act”.

(Para 9)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Trial as Adult -- Bail – Appellant was arrested on 07.12.2020 and is continuing in custody which may bring him in association with any known criminals and his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also violated – Appeal allowed, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail pending trial.

(Para 10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Writ remedy is an extraordinary remedy but does not the panacea of all evils.

(Para 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 22, 23 -- Writ of mandamus – Vacation of house from daughter-in-law – Writ with prayer as “that a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 to oust respondent No.4 from the house of petitioner.” --  Respondent no.4 is daughter in-law -- Held, writ petition is not maintainable in respect of dispute between two private parties.

(Para 3, 4, 10-12)

Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (17 of 1950), Section 14(3) – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Eviction of tenant – Suit for eviction within 5 years of tenancy -- Suit may have been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy, more than 38 years have now elapsed since the suit was filed – Held, passage of time beyond the period of five years would wash away the initial impediment against the suit -- To say that the landlord should now, once again, restart the proceedings would be a travesty of justice -- Expression used is ‘shall lie’ or ‘be entertained’ would really make no difference -- Objective is to create an impediment in the institution and trial of the suit for a period specified under the said Act -- Spirit of protection is fulfilled with the passage of the prescribed time period – Supreme Court is also armed with the extraordinary power under Article 142 to do absolute justice inter se the parties -- Decree of eviction passed by the first appellate court affirmed.

(Para 16-22)