Labour Law – Termination – Loss of Confidence – Termination Held Illegal – Reinstatement with Continuity Upheld – Industrial Tribunal found that the plea of “loss of confidence” was unsubstantiated – Termination declared illegal – Workman reinstated with continuity of service – Tribunal awarded 25% back wages – Held: Findings on illegality of termination justified and not interfered with [Paras 1, 10]

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – No Rigid Formula – Award Enhanced from 25% to 50% – Principles of Equity and Justice Applied – Workman served for three years – Management failed to prove gainful employment of workman during period of enforced idleness – In absence of any proven misconduct or valid justification for termination, denial of higher back wages unjustified – Court enhanced back wages to 50% from date of termination till reinstatement – Payment directed within four weeks with 9% interest on default [Paras 11-13]

Judicial Review – Scope in Reinstatement and Back Wages – Courts Must Consider All Circumstances – Referring to Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, and Hindustan Tin Works, Court reiterated that reinstatement ordinarily follows full or substantial back wages unless gainful employment shown – Tribunal must consider length of service, nature of termination, and conduct of parties – Denial of back wages penalizes workman despite employer’s wrongdoing [Paras 5, 8-9]

Precedents – Principles Governing Back Wages – Affirmed – Court discussed Supreme Court precedents including U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh, General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, and Deepali Gundu Surwase – Held: No thumb rule exists – Determination must be case-specific, guided by equity, justice, and good conscience [Paras 6-9]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Impugned award modified – Back wages enhanced from 25% to 50% from date of termination till reinstatement – Amount to be paid within four weeks, failing which interest @9% per annum shall apply.

Ceiling Law – Title over plot in ceiling proceedings – Earlier order rejecting objection stood set aside in appeal – Res judicata inapplicable – Appellate authority rightly considered Will Deeds, revenue entries and mutation orders to hold the land belonged to Pradeep Singh, not Bhagwan Singh – No perversity or statutory violation – Delay of three years in filing writ – Writ dismissed [Paras 26–32].

Ceiling Proceedings – Determination of Holding – Effect of Remand – Initial order dated 31.10.1994 holding plot no. 508 as part of Bhagwan Singh’s holding was set aside in appeal on 29.01.1997 and matter remanded. Held: Once the remand order wiped out the earlier order, no finality attached to title determination; plea of res judicata misplaced [Para 26].

Appellate Authority – Evaluation of Title – Consideration of Will Deeds and Mutation Records – Appellate authority considered Will Deeds (including Will dated 07.12.1973), long-standing mutation entries and revenue records showing land standing in name of Pradeep Singh / respondents much prior to ceiling proceedings. Findings based on evidence; no perversity shown [Paras 25, 27, 29].

Will Executed During Proceedings – Applicability of Sections 5(6) & 5(8) – State argued that Will dated 06.12.1990 executed during pendency of ceiling proceedings should be ignored. Held: Appellate authority did not treat the Will as a device to evade ceiling law but considered it only to ascertain existing title with reference to revenue entries. No statutory violation made out [Para 28].

Surplus Land Adjustment – No Prejudice to State – Even after exclusion of plot no. 508/5-350 hectares, any deficiency in surplus area was adjusted from other plots of original tenure-holder Bhagwan Singh; no substantial injury to the State established [Paras 11, 29].

Delay & Laches – Administrative Inaction – Impugned appellate order dated 14.10.1999 was received on 29.10.1999 but writ filed only in 2002 after prolonged administrative inaction. Held: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to cure belated administrative lapses when appellate findings are reasoned and lawful [Paras 13–14, 29–30].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Appellate findings supported by evidence; no jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of statutory mandate; High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 [Paras 28–31].

Decision – No illegality found in appellate order dated 14.10.1999 excluding plot no. 508/5-350 hectares from holding of Bhagwan Singh; writ petition dismissed; no costs [Paras 31–33].

Slum Areas – De-notification of Acquired Land – Legality – Petitioner’s land declared as slum in 1976 and later acquired under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas Act – Respondents issued possession certificates and began rehabilitation projects – State later de-notified the land citing financial burden and lack of finance department approval – Held: Once land is acquired and vests under Section 18, it cannot be de-notified under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act – De-notification is impermissible and ultra vires [Paras 21-29, 38-40]

Land Acquisition – Possession and Compensation – Petitioner, though having executed Power of Attorney and sale agreement, retained ownership as there was no registered transfer – Possession taken under Government Notification dated 18.10.2004 and confirmed by Slum Board through possession certificates – Held: Possession lawfully taken, petitioner's title not extinguished by mere PoA or agreement to sell – Compensation payable under Section 20 [Paras 24-30, 36]

Constitutional Law – Right to Property and Life – Article 300-A and Article 21 – State’s action in occupying private land without compensation and attempting withdrawal of acquisition contrary to law – Held: Property rights cannot be extinguished without compensation – Financial constraints cannot justify breach of constitutional obligations – Right to shelter of slum dwellers must be balanced with property rights of landowners [Paras 19-23, 31-35]

Statutory Interpretation – General Clauses Act vis-à-vis Special Act – Respondents’ reliance on Section 21 of General Clauses Act to cancel acquisition under Slum Act rejected – Slum Act has no provision for withdrawal once land vests with State – General Clauses Act cannot override specific acquisition provisions [Paras 25-27, 39-40]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – De-notification quashed – State directed to determine and pay compensation to petitioner within 12 weeks with applicable interest – Directions affirmed by earlier coordinate bench and upheld by Division Bench in W.A. No.100107/2025 [Paras 8, 31, 43-44]

Property Law – Partition Suit – Effect of Previous Litigation – Interpretation of Decree – Appellants (Plaintiffs) sought partition of joint property claiming half share – Respondent (Defendant) contended that Appellants lost rights due to failure to pay Rs. 5,300/- as ordered in a previous Second Appeal (S.A. No. 641 of 1988) – First Appellate Court dismissed the partition suit on grounds of non-compliance with the previous decree – High Court held that the previous decree only created a charge on the property for the amount due and did not extinguish the Appellants' title – The previous judgment clarified that title would not pass without a registered relinquishment deed, which was never executed – Held: First Appellate Court misconstrued the clauses of the earlier decree; the remedy for Respondent was execution/auction, not denial of partition – Plaintiffs entitled to partition [Paras 15-18, 20].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Oral Agreement – Respondent claimed an oral agreement existed wherein Appellants agreed to sell their share for Rs. 1,00,000/- – No evidence produced to substantiate the oral agreement – High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing the Trial Court’s decree without proper appreciation of evidence – High Court noted that Appellants had eventually deposited the requisite amount with the Trial Court – Findings of the First Appellate Court were vitiated by misinterpretation of documentary evidence (Ex. A-1) – Interference under Section 100 CPC justified when findings are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents [Paras 14, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court (decreeing the suit for partition) restored – Each party to bear their own costs.

Service Law – Displacement Quota – Employment – G.O.Ms.No.98 – Delay in Application – Writ petitioner, son of displaced person from Dachuru village, filed application for employment 10 years after displacement – Rejection of claim by authorities citing limitation of one year under G.O.Ms.No.98 – Held: One-year limitation cannot be strictly enforced in light of settled precedents and State policy – Authorities directed to include petitioner in the first seniority list based on eligibility – Petitioner entitled to appointment as per turn under displacement quota [Paras 4, 8(I), 10, 11].

Administrative Law – Seniority List – Violation of Natural Justice – Second seniority list of 106 displaced persons was set aside by the learned single Judge without impleading affected parties – Held: Order is unsustainable being passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Affected candidates were not heard – Order set aside – Government Memo restoring second seniority list reinstated – Beneficiaries of the second list directed to be provided employment as per their turn [Paras 6, 8(III), 10(i)].

Displacement & Rehabilitation – Seniority Classification – Two-tier seniority system maintained for displaced persons based on actual submergence and displacement – Dachuru village formed part of the first list where water impoundment and displacement occurred in 2005 – Petitioner wrongly sought inclusion in second list instead of first – Court clarified distinction between lists and corrected placement accordingly [Paras 5, 8(II), 11].

Precedent – Relaxation of Time Limit – High Court reaffirmed position laid down in earlier judgment State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy, W.A. No. 356 of 2023 – One-year application time under G.O.Ms.No.98 is not mandatory – Policy aims at livelihood protection and must be interpreted liberally for displaced families [Paras 8(I)(c)-(d)].

Decision:

Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2024 allowed – Order of single Judge dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 approving second seniority list restored – Authorities directed to provide employment to appellants as per their turn under G.O.Ms.No.98 [Para 10(i)-(ii)].

Writ Appeal No. 1289 of 2023 disposed of – Authorities directed to include writ petitioner’s name in the first seniority list, not the second – Employment to be provided as per eligibility and turn under displacement quota [Para 11].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction – Revisional Jurisdiction – Petitioners convicted for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- issued as partial refund for unfulfilled property sale agreement – Defence pleaded coercion in obtaining the cheque and refund agreement, and denied receipt of original consideration – Held: Mere lodging of a police complaint by the accused alleging coercion, without further corroborative evidence or legal steps to challenge the agreement, is insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Existence of signed Refund Agreement acknowledging liability of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- weakens defence – Failure to produce financial records to disprove receipt of consideration renders the defence of "no liability" improbable – Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld [Paras 16-19, 24].

Evidence – Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Minor Discrepancies – Petitioners argued that the Complainant failed to specify the exact place of signing/handing over the cheque during cross-examination – Held: Once the issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, technical omissions regarding the place of execution do not constitute material contradictions – Such minor discrepancies cannot defeat the prosecution case when the accused fails to prove their defence affirmatively [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence affirmed – Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 directed to surrender within 15 days to serve the sentence – Stay prayer rejected.

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Cognizance Taken – FIR lodged in 2024 for alleged sexual harassment incidents dating back to 2018–2020 – FIR registered under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, and 509 IPC – Charge sheet later filed under Sections 354 and 354A IPC – Held: FIR not barred merely due to Section 468 Cr.P.C. which limits cognizance by court, not registration by police – Petition under Section 482 maintainable despite charge sheet being filed subsequently [Paras 7–10, 15, 27, 31]

Limitation – Cognizance After Delay – Sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C. – Complaint filed after more than four years of alleged offence – Court held FIR and investigation not barred by limitation – However, cognizance of offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years requires trial court to apply mind to condonation under Section 473 – Trial court had taken cognizance under Section 354 IPC without considering delay – Held: Allegations, even if accepted, attract only Section 354A IPC (max punishment 3 years) – Matter remanded to trial court to consider condonation of delay afresh [Paras 23–24, 32–35]

Sexual Offences – Section 354 vs 354A IPC – Interpretation – Complaint alleged inappropriate touching, pulling hand, and removal of saree pin – Court held these acts do not meet threshold of "outraging modesty" under Section 354 IPC – Allegations fall within purview of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC – Charge under Section 354 IPC not sustainable on face of complaint – Cognizance under Section 354 IPC quashed [Paras 22–23, 33]

Quashing Scope – Stage of Charge Sheet – Legal Position – Court reaffirmed that quashing can be sought even after charge sheet filing and cognizance, if ingredients of alleged offences are not prima facie made out – Cited Anand Kumar Mohatta and Joseph Salvaraj decisions – Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. extends beyond FIR stage [Paras 14–16]

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – Cognizance under Section 354 IPC set aside – Case remanded to trial court to consider condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 354A IPC and proceed accordingly – Trial court to determine afresh whether cognizance can be taken for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC in light of limitation [Paras 35–36]

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Attempt to Commit – Section 308 IPC – Appellant convicted for assaulting victim with blunt weapons along with others, causing grievous injuries – Conviction upheld based on testimony of injured eyewitness and corroborative medical evidence – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Appeal limited to sentence modification [Paras 3, 7–8].

Probation – Release on Good Conduct – Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Appellant aged 50 years, employed as a security guard, with peaceful conduct and no criminal history – Social Investigation Report found favourable – Incident occurred 24 years ago and sentence served partially – Held: Appellant deserves benefit of probation – Substantive sentence modified – Appellant directed to furnish bond for one year with conditions of good behaviour [Paras 9–13].

Judicial Discretion – Sentencing – Court emphasised reformative approach – Referenced Supreme Court precedents in Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab and Chellammal v. State, reiterating duty of courts to consider probation where conditions under Section 4(1) are met – Held: Courts must balance nature of offence with potential for reformation [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Conviction maintained – Sentence of imprisonment set aside – Appellant released on probation for one year with surety and bond of ₹10,000 – Fine maintained – Appeal partly allowed [Para 13].

Service Law – Deputy Librarian – Nomenclature change under G.O. 26.12.1998 – No automatic enhancement of retirement age to 62 years – Higher pay scale wrongly granted but recovery after 17 years impermissible – Retirement at 60 upheld; recovery quashed; pension to be fixed on last pay drawn [Paras 10–16].

Service Benefits – Change of Nomenclature – Whether Retirement Age Altered – Government Order dated 26.12.1998 changed designation of Deputy Librarian (₹2000–3200) to Librarian with UGC pay scale; however, G.O. contains no provision altering age of retirement. Held: Retirement age must be strictly as per service rules; mere change of nomenclature does not alter superannuation benefits. Retirement at 60 years was valid [Paras 10–12].

Pay Scale – Eligibility – Erroneous Grant of Librarian Scale – Petitioner was in pay scale ₹1400–2300, not ₹2000–3200 as required under G.O. 26.12.1998. Therefore, grant of UGC-linked higher pay scale was factually and legally incorrect; strict interpretation of G.O. goes against petitioner [Paras 12–13].

Recovery of Excess Payment – Long Delay – No Fraud – Protection under Rafiq Masih – Although pay scale was wrongly granted, petitioner enjoyed the scale for 17 years, including revised UGC benefits, without misrepresentation. Applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883, recovery after retirement—especially after nearly two decades—is inequitable and impermissible. Held: Recovery order unsustainable [Paras 14–15].

Retirement Age Claim – Rejection Justified – Since petitioner never received a valid promotion to Librarian post and G.O. does not regulate retirement age, claim to work till 62 years is untenable. Petitioner had already crossed 62 during litigation; no relief could be granted [Paras 3–7, 11–12].

Final Relief – Partial Allowance – Prayer to extend service till 62 years rejected; however, respondents restrained from recovering any amount paid under higher pay scale. Pension to be calculated on basis of last pay actually drawn (higher pay scale) and not on pre-2001 scale. Impugned recovery orders set aside [Para 16].