Pension Law - Family Pension Scheme – Discrimination Against Post-Retirement Adoption – Petition under Article 226 challenging Note 1 of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 – Rule excludes children adopted after retirement from family pension benefits – Held, discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14 – Children adopted post-retirement also entitled to family pension – Rule struck down, order rejecting pension claim quashed – Directions to grant family pension from date of adoptive father's death. [Paras 1-15]

Adoption and Pension Benefits – Analysis – Fixing retirement as cut-off date for adoption discriminatory – Adoption after retirement often for providing support in old age – Exclusion from pension benefits based on adoption timing unjustifiable – Pension rights arise from service rendered, not a bounty – Family pension intended to support dependents of deceased employees. [Paras 2-9]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions striking down similar provisions as arbitrary – Bhagwanti vs. Union of India held exclusion of post-retirement spouses and children from pension benefits violates Article 14 – Similar reasoning applicable to current case. [Paras 9-12]

Decision – Striking Down Discriminatory Rule – Note 1 of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 of Family Pension Scheme, 1964 struck down – Directions to grant family pension to petitioner from adoptive father's death – No interest on delayed payment due to legal hitch, unless delayed beyond three months from judgment. [Paras 14-15]

Administrative Law - Criteria for Selection – Appeal against Single Judge's order altering selection criteria – Selection for Shift Attendants based on written examination, experience, and interview – Commission as expert body within its right to fix criteria – Petitioners participated without objection, bound by advertisement conditions – Writ petition decided without Commission's response, premature decision – Appeal allowed, writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Judicial Review of Policy Decisions – Analysis – Courts should not interfere in policy matters of expert bodies without allegations of malafide – Commission's decision on selection criteria upheld – Criteria included written examination, experience, and interview marks – Written test marks prioritized to ensure merit-based selection. [Paras 13-19, 24]

Procedural Fairness – Consideration – Single Judge's decision issued without response from Commission – Important policy issue involved, requiring balanced view – Premature decision led to unfair advantage for some candidates, undermining merit-based selection. [Paras 10-11, 19]

Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing limited judicial interference in expert body's policy decisions – Consistent application of criteria for all candidates upheld – Policy decisions of expert bodies should be respected in absence of malice or arbitrariness. [Paras 16-21]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Single Judge's order set aside – Selection process conducted by Commission upheld – Writ petitions dismissed, all pending civil miscellaneous applications disposed of. [Paras 25]

Service Law - Promotion Criteria – Petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging Tribunal's order – Tribunal directed consideration of respondent for Deputy General Manager (Technical) post based on seniority and a 1996 circular – Circular stipulated seniors to be considered for promotion along with juniors if not short by more than half the required qualifying service or 2 years – Authority estopped from claiming non-applicability of circular after taking action based on it – Petition dismissed, Tribunal's order upheld. [Paras 1-18]

Applicability of Government Circulars – Analysis – Circular from 1996 mandates consideration of seniors along with juniors for promotion – Regulations under Section 35 of the Act and instructions from the Central Government are binding on the Authority – Failure to amend Service Rules to incorporate the circular does not nullify its applicability – Tribunal correctly directed consideration based on the circular. [Paras 3-4, 12-14]

Selective Implementation – Held – Authority selectively implemented circular for some posts but not for Deputy General Manager (Technical) – No valid clarification for selective application – Consistent implementation required for all relevant posts – Tribunal's order justified. [Paras 13-14]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and previous Tribunal decisions affirming the binding nature of Government instructions on statutory bodies – No infirmity in Tribunal's reliance on circular for directing consideration of respondent. [Paras 3, 7, 16]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Tribunal's order directing consideration of respondent based on 1996 circular upheld – Authority bound by circular and Regulations – Writ petition dismissed as lacking merit. [Paras 17-18]

Administrative Law - Departmental Proceedings Against Retired Employee – Appeal under Articles 226 and 227 challenging departmental proceedings – Show cause notice and charge sheet issued post-retirement for transactions dated beyond 4 years – Held, initiation of proceedings beyond 4 years after the event is barred under Regulation 48 – Proceedings must be initiated within service period or within 4 years post-event – LPA allowed, show cause notice and charge sheet quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Time Bar for Proceedings – Analysis – Date of initiation is considered as issuance of the charge sheet, not the show cause notice – Regulation 48 restricts initiation of proceedings to within 4 years of the event – Proceedings against appellant initiated beyond permissible period – Appeal allowed based on time-bar principle. [Paras 3, 6]

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court – Principle that charge sheet date marks initiation of proceedings reaffirmed – Consistent interpretation across similar regulations upholding protection of retirees from prolonged liability. [Paras 3, 7]

Decision – Quashing of Departmental Proceedings – Appeal allowed – Learned Single Judge's order set aside – Show cause notice and charge sheet quashed as proceedings initiated beyond the permissible period – Appellant protected under Regulation 48, proceedings deemed an abuse of process. [Paras 11-13]

Administrative Law - Estoppel and Selection Criteria – Appeal against selection process for Post Graduate Teachers – No selection criteria in advertisement; criteria disclosed at result declaration – Held, candidates estopped from challenging selection criteria after participating in selection process and not being selected – Criteria managed by experts; no written examination held – LPA dismissed due to estoppel and absence of challenge during selection process. [Paras 2, 10]

Judicial Review and Delay – Analysis – Findings that appellants participated with knowledge of criteria, thus estopped from challenge – Courts uphold that participants cannot challenge criteria post participation – Consideration of prolonged delay (nearly a decade) since finalization of process and appointments – Challenge rejected on grounds of delay, laches, and potential inequity to selected candidates. [Paras 10, 15]

Role of Selection Boards – Held – Selection criteria framed by experts and members appointed by statute – No evidence of mala fides against Selection Committee – Selection based on academic excellence and interview marks (67:33 ratio) upheld – No discretion misused by Board. [Paras 2-5, 8, 11]

Precedents and Principles – Reference to judgments emphasizing that candidates who participate in a process cannot later challenge the criteria if not selected – Principle of estoppel applied – Selection process considered fair and in accordance with laid-down criteria. [Paras 3, 6, 10]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of Single Judge upheld – No illegality or infirmity in selection process – Consideration of elapsed time and absence of specific allegations against Selection Committee – Appeals lack merit, dismissed accordingly. [Paras 15-16]

Industrial Disputes - Termination of Daily Wager - Reinstatement - Appeal against setting aside of Labour Court's award for reinstatement - Appellant's termination without notice, enquiry, or compensation - Daily wages included rest days - Appellant completed 240 days of work - Section 25-F violation found - Labour Court's award reinstated. [Paras 13-15]

Calculation of Continuous Service - Inclusion of Rest Days - Analysis - Daily wages included rest days - Sundays and holidays to be counted for 240-day calculation under Section 25-F - Single Bench's exclusion of rest days incorrect - Labour Court correctly calculated continuous service. [Paras 10-12]

Judicial Review - Limited Scope under Article 226 - Held - Writ court should not act as appellate authority - No interference with Tribunal's findings unless perverse or erroneous - Single Bench erred in revisiting evidence and substituting its opinion. [Paras 14-15]

Decision - Reinstatement with Continuity of Service - Labour Court's findings on 240-day completion and Section 25-F non-compliance upheld - Single Bench's order set aside - Appeal allowed - Appellant entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. [Para 15]

Criminal Law – Restoration of Dismissed Complaint – Jurisdiction of Magistrate – Petition against order of JMFC allowing the restoration of a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution. Held, once a case is finally decided, the Court becomes functus officio and lacks the power to review or recall the order on any ground. The restoration order is set aside as illegal. [Paras 1-18]

Function of Magistrate Post-Final Decision – Analysis – Held, a magistrate has no inherent jurisdiction to review or recall a final order once a complaint is dismissed. Dismissal for default or non-prosecution is a final order and can only be altered by a superior court. Reliance on irrelevant judgments under different statutory frameworks, such as the Consumer Protection Act, is misplaced. [Paras 8-16]

Decision – Quashing of Restoration Order – Court quashes the impugned order of restoration and reaffirms the original dismissal of the complaint. Clarifies that respondents may seek appropriate legal remedies as per law. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law - Multiple FIRs for Same Offence – Petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of second FIR – Second FIR registered under Sections 379 and 411 IPC for the same theft and recovery incident – Held, filing of the second FIR is impermissible as the incident and occurrence are the same – Two FIRs can subsist only if there are two rival versions in respect of the same incident – Petition allowed, second FIR quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Principle of 'Sameness' in FIRs – Analysis – Test of 'sameness' applied to determine whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and occurrence – Held, both FIRs pertain to the theft of the same scooter and its recovery, thus forming part of the same transaction – Registration of the second FIR violates the principle of 'sameness'. [Paras 10-11]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that multiple FIRs for the same incident are not permissible unless there are distinct and separate incidents or rival versions – Second FIR for the same offence considered an abuse of the process of law. [Paras 9, 11]

Decision – Quashing of Second FIR – Petition allowed – Second FIR No. 672 dated 18.12.2015 registered under Sections 379 and 411 IPC at Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed. [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Procedure - Default Bail – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Appeal against the denial of default bail – Challan presented within the statutory period but alleged to be incomplete due to lack of sanction under the Explosive Substances Act – Held, sanction obtained and submitted before filing the application for default bail – Challan considered complete – No entitlement to default bail – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Completeness of Challan – Analysis – The challan filed on 15.11.2019 included material for prosecution – Sanction under the Explosive Substances Act granted on 10.11.2020 – Application for default bail filed on 14.12.2020 – Held, challan filed within statutory time was complete with due sanction – Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. not applicable. [Paras 7-9]

Judicial Interpretation – Legal Position – Clarification of the right to default bail if the investigation report (challan) is not complete within the stipulated time – Legal provisions and judicial precedents establish that default bail is not warranted if the challan is completed before the application for default bail is made. [Para 11]

Investigation and Jurisdiction – Facts and Circumstances – Forensic examination revealed high-explosive materials leading to NIA involvement – The procedural sequence justified transfer to NIA and completion of formalities before default bail application – National and international ramifications considered. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No infirmity in the order denying default bail – Challan completed and sanctions obtained within necessary timelines – Application for default bail found baseless – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9-10]