Constitutional Law - Pension for High Court Judges - Break in Service

Pension Computation - Blending of Service Periods – Petitioner served in Subordinate Judicial Service from 11.05.1981 to 31.07.2014 and as a High Court Judge from 25.09.2014 to 04.07.2016 – Central Government denied counting High Court service for pension due to a break of 1 month and 24 days – Held, appointment as High Court Judge is not a continuation of District Judge service – Service periods must be blended for pension computation – Break in service deemed irrelevant. [Paras 9-19]

Section 16 of the 1954 Act - Not Applicable for Break in Service – Refusal to count High Court service period under Section 16 of the 1954 Act incorrect – Section 16 applicable only for shortfall in total service, not for breaks – Actual service as High Court Judge from 25.09.2014 to 04.07.2016 must be added to service as District Judge – Pension to be calculated by blending both periods of service. [Paras 17-20]

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Respondent No. 4 directed to compute pension by blending service periods within 8 weeks. [Para 22]

Administrative Law - Recruitment Examination - Expert Committee Opinion-Expert Committee's Decision in Academic Matters – Appeal against the decision of the Committee of Experts on objections to the recruitment test for Assistant Professors (Physics) – Recruitment test conducted by Haryana Public Service Commission – Objections reviewed by a Committee of Professors – Court emphasized deference to expert opinion in academic matters – Held, courts should not interfere with expert decisions unless mala fides or bias is shown – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-5]

Judicial Restraint in Academic Decisions – Court emphasized judicial restraint in academic matters – Cited Supreme Court decision in UPPSC v. Rahul Singh, highlighting that courts must defer to expert opinions in conflicting academic views – Ensured that the Commission acted fairly by correcting bona fide errors in the question paper and answer keys – Appeal found to be devoid of merit and dismissed. [Paras 4-5]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. [Para 5]

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Future Prospects - Notional Income- Compensation - Addition for Future Prospects – Appeal for enhancement of compensation due to death of 17-year-old son in a motor accident – Deceased had secured admission to engineering colleges and NDA – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs. 15,000 per annum and awarded compensation without future prospects – Held, appellant entitled to 40% addition on account of future prospects even without actual income – Appeal allowed. [Paras 13, 20-21]

Multiplier and Conventional Heads – Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 – Held, correct multiplier is 18 as per Sarla Verma's case – Compensation recalculated including amounts for loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses – Total compensation enhanced. [Paras 22-23]

Decision: Appeal allowed, compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,22,000 with interest at 9% per annum. [Paras 24-26]

Criminal Law - Parole Application - Procedure and Timelines- Parole and Furlough - Procedure and Timelines – Petition for parole under Section 3(1)(b) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – Petitioner a life convict seeking release for house repair and agricultural purposes – Allegations of procedural delays by jail authorities – Directions issued to ensure timely processing of parole applications: Superintendent Jail to register applications immediately, process within 5 days, District Magistrate to decide within 21 days, Divisional Commissioner to complete process within 10 days – Legal Services Authority to oversee application registration. [Paras 1-19]

Hardcore Prisoners - Separate Procedure – Petitioner categorized as a 'hardcore prisoner' due to multiple convictions and absconding from parole – Application under Section 3(1)(b) not maintainable for hardcore prisoners – Separate procedure under Section 5-A applicable – Petitioner's past conduct of absconding during parole periods and false declarations noted – Parole denied. [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Petition dismissed. [Para 23]

Property Law - NRI Landlord - Eviction Petition - Section 13B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Ownership and NRI Status – Revision against order declining leave to contest and allowing eviction under Section 13B – Landlord, settled in USA, filed eviction petition for premises in Chandigarh – Ownership established through sale deed executed via power of attorney – Petition allowed by Rent Controller despite tenant's objections regarding landlord's NRI status and bonafide need – Held, landlord qualifies as NRI under Section 2(dd) – NRI status not affected by timing of property acquisition – Ownership for more than five years prior to eviction petition meets Section 13B criteria – Tenant's objections on procedural grounds and bonafide need found unsubstantiated. [Paras 1-24]

Procedural Requirements - Joint Ownership - Fragmentation – Tenant contested on grounds of joint ownership and property fragmentation – Contention regarding invalidity of eviction petition due to fragmented ownership rejected – NRI landlord’s right to seek eviction upheld even with co-ownership – Fragmentation rules not applicable as per Division Bench precedent. [Paras 26-27]

Bonafide Need - Summary Proceedings – Tenant alleged eviction sought for rent enhancement, not genuine need – Held, tenant failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut presumption of landlord’s genuine requirement – Summary proceedings under Section 13B emphasize expedited process for NRI landlords – Legislative intent supported genuine claims, burden of proof on tenant to disprove bonafide requirement. [Paras 20-25]

Decision: Civil revision dismissed, eviction order upheld. [Paras 31-32]

Criminal Law - NDPS Act - Appeal Against Conviction - Joint Consent Memo - Joint Possession

Criminal Procedure - Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act - Joint Offer and Consent – Appeal against conviction under Section 15 of NDPS Act – Accused and co-accused were apprehended together and given a joint offer under Section 50 – Joint consent memo prepared – Co-accused acquitted on grounds of not proving conscious possession – Held, joint offer and consent invalid under Section 50 as it does not comply with mandatory provision for separate individual offer – Conviction of appellant set aside. [Para 29(a)]

Investigation - FIR Number on Documents Prior to Registration - Procedural Lapse – Recovery made before FIR registration – FIR number recorded on documents prepared prior to FIR – Prosecution failed to explain the presence of FIR number on pre-FIR documents – Creates suspicion on the integrity of the investigation – Conviction cannot be sustained. [Para 29(b)]

Forensic Analysis - Sample Verification and Seal Procedure - Inconsistencies – Sample sent to Chemical Examiner lacked Magistrate's counter-seal – Magistrate did not verify original samples drawn at the spot – Samples remained with Investigating Officer before sending to FSL – Non-compliance with proper procedure for verification and sealing – Doubt on sample integrity – Appellant acquitted. [Para 29(c)]

Possession - Conscious Possession - Joint Possession – Co-accused acquitted on grounds of not proving conscious possession – No specific question put to appellant regarding conscious possession during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination – Prosecution failed to establish conscious possession – Benefit of doubt given to appellant. [Para 29(d)]

Public Place Recovery - Independent Witnesses - Impact on Prosecution Case – Recovery at a petrol pump, a public place, without independent witnesses – Though non-joining of independent witnesses not fatal under NDPS Act, raises doubt in this case – Prosecution version under suspicion – Appellant acquitted. [Para 29(e)]

Decision: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted, and bail bonds discharged. [Paras 30-31]

Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act - Market Fees - Vires of Rule 29(7): Petition challenging Rule 29(7) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 - Rule deemed agricultural produce bought or sold in a market area if agreement, weighment, or delivery occurred there - Held, Rule 29(7) ultra vires as it exceeds the authority granted by Section 23 of the Act by expanding definitions beyond legislative intent - Levy of market fees depends on actual transactions per Sale of Goods Act. [Paras 1-22]

Market Fees - Transaction Location - Sale of Goods Act: Legal fiction in Rule 29(7) that deems agricultural produce bought or sold based on weighment or delivery within market area was beyond legislative policy - Actual transaction locations determine market fee applicability - Supreme Court precedents reaffirm sale or purchase based on where title and delivery occur. [Paras 13-21]

Decision - Remand for Fresh Determination: Orders by authorities set aside - Matter remanded to Secretary, Market Committee for fresh determination based on material on record - Petitioners to substantiate claims that sale or purchase occurred outside market area to avoid market fee liability. [Para 22]

Disability Pension - Arrears and Interest - Recurring Cause of Action: Appeal challenging the restriction of arrears to 38 months prior to filing the petition - Held, cause of action for disability pension is recurring - Appellant entitled to full arrears from the date of liability without interest due to delay in claim - Single Bench decision modified to provide full arrears without interest. [Paras 1-10]

Recurring Cause of Action - Pension Payments: Pension payment is a recurring obligation - Employer cannot claim delay and laches defense for non-payment - Restriction on arrears inconsistent with finding that delay does not bar claim - Full arrears granted without interest to balance equities, considering appellant's delay in filing claim. [Paras 7-10]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Full Arrears Granted: Appeal allowed, Single Bench decision modified to grant full arrears of disability pension without interest - Respondents directed to pay arrears within three months, failing which interest at 8% per annum to apply on remaining arrears. [Para 10]

Civil Procedure - Recall of Witness - Inherent Powers of Court: Petition to recall plaintiffs' witness for cross-examination after evidence closed - Alternative relief sought to present questions to the trial court for determining their relevance - Held, recalling of witness can be permitted under inherent powers of the court if justified - Petition allowed with direction to trial court to assess relevance of proposed questions. [Paras 1-14]

Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - Reopening of Evidence: In absence of specific provisions in CPC for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses, Section 151 CPC can be invoked for the ends of justice - Court directed petitioners to submit list of questions for trial court to decide on their relevance for recalling witness. [Paras 10-14]

Costs for Delay - Conditions for Recalling Witness: Petitioners directed to pay costs for delay caused by recalling witness - Costs set at Rs. 10,000 - If trial court finds questions relevant, one effective opportunity to be granted for further cross-examination of PW-1. [Para 12]

Decision - Petition Allowed - Impugned Order Set Aside: Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside - Petitioners to submit questions to trial court within 15 days, trial court to decide on relevance within next 15 days - Costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by petitioners. [Paras 10-14]