Certainly, I can help you create headnotes for the given judgment. Here is the headnote summary:

Compassionate Appointment – Dependency Clause – Biological son eligible for compassionate benefits but question of daughter-in-law’s eligibility under dispute.

The original writ petition was filed by Amandeep Singh, son of a deceased government employee, for the grant of compassionate benefits which were earlier denied. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider his application, recognizing him as a dependent of the deceased. [Para 16-17, 19-20]

Clarification – Policy Prevalence Date – Case to be considered as per the policy prevalent at the time of father’s death.

A clarification order was issued that specified Amandeep Singh's case would be considered based on the policy applicable at the time of his father's death. [Para related to order dated 06.07.2021]

Subsequent Developments – Death of Original Petitioner – Widow files for contempt, arguing for entitlement under the original order.

After the death of Amandeep Singh, his widow, Sarabjit Kaur, filed for contempt and argued that she should be entitled to benefits per the original order. An application was disposed of, stating that she, being the widow, is entitled to the benefit as per the original order. [Para related to order dated 27.10.2022]

State Policy Update – New Scheme for Compassionate Appointments – Inclusion of PSEB wards who died before a specific date.

Counsel for the petitioner highlighted a new scheme framed by the State Government, which also covers wards of deceased PSEB employees who died before 16.04.2010. [Discussion about the scheme dated 06.12.2022]

Dismissal – Contempt Petition – No willful disobedience found, issue of daughter-in-law's eligibility not suitable for contempt proceedings.

The Court dismissed the contempt petition, stating there was no willful disobedience of the order dated 14.08.2019, as it's a disputed fact whether the petitioner, being the daughter-in-law of the deceased, is covered under the policy or not. Liberty granted to avail alternative remedies. [Final Para]

Hope this helps.

Matrimonial Dispute – Transfer of Petition – Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the case filed under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act due to distance and inconvenience.

Legal Precedents – Judgments like Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, and N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha cited to emphasize the convenience of female litigants.

Factors for Consideration – Importance of various factors such as family condition, minor child custody, economic status, and physical health of the petitioner-wife in the decision for transfer.

Decision – Court allows the transfer of the case to Faridkot under certain conditions, including an obligation to appear before the Family Court at Faridkot and possible mediation.

Conditions for Revival – Respondent granted the liberty to contest the decision under specified conditions like clearing maintenance arrears and providing litigation expenses.

Anti-enforcement action – Plaintiff seeks injunction to restrain enforcement of anti-suit permanent injunction order issued by High Court of Singapore – Plaintiff contends that disputes of oppression and mismanagement under Indian law are non-arbitrable – Urgency due to imminent arbitration proceedings. [Para 1-22]

Jurisdiction - Exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT for disputes related to oppression and mismanagement - Prohibition on Civil Courts to entertain such matters under Sections 241, 242, and 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Non-arbitrability of disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement under Indian law - Effect of arbitration clause specifying Singapore as the seat of arbitration - Arbitral award enforceable under Indian law - Application of the public policy doctrine to enforcement of foreign awards - Impossibility of enforcing foreign award when the subject matter of dispute is incapable of settlement through arbitration under Indian law - Plaintiff effectively rendered remediless by anti-suit permanent injunction order from High Court of Singapore. [Para 38-54]

Prima facie case for an anti-enforcement temporary injunction - The plaintiff seeks to restrain the enforcement of an anti-suit permanent injunction order issued by the High Court of Singapore. Examination of whether the plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case for the grant of an anti-enforcement temporary injunction. [Para 55-56]

Prima facie case established - Plaintiff demonstrating a prima facie case for the injunction, as the denial of access to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) would render the plaintiff remediless. [Para 66-67]

Grave and irreparable loss to the plaintiff - If the anti-suit permanent injunction order is enforced, the plaintiff would be left remediless while the arbitration at Singapore would continue, and the award would be unenforceable in India. [Para 80]

Balance of convenience - The balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, as granting the temporary injunction would allow the plaintiff to pursue a remedy before the NCLT, and the defendants can still invoke Section 45 of the Arbitration Act to seek arbitration. [Para 81]

Application Allowed - Extension of Previous Order - interim order dated 22.11.2021, which adjourned the Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM), is extended for a further period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment. [Para 84]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 376(2)(i), 323 of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Appeal against the trial court's judgment – Evaluation of the evidence – Victim's testimony found consistent and reliable – Medical evidence supports the victim's claims – Age of the victim confirmed to be below 18 years – Conviction affirmed. [Para 26-27,]

In cases of sexual assault, victim's testimony akin to an injured witness – Delay in lodging FIR not fatal when a reasonable explanation is given – Corroboration not mandatory – Trustworthiness of the victim's testimony paramount – Conviction based on sole testimony upheld. [Para 19-25]

Medical evidence corroborates victim's claims – Radiological findings confirm victim's age – Conviction under the POCSO Act applicable – No grounds to question the findings of the trial court – Appeal dismissed. [Para 26-28]

Murder - Criminal Appeal – Challenge to the Judgment of the Trial Court – Conviction of the appellants – Evaluation of evidence – Role of injured witnesses – Assessment of material omissions and contradictions – Conviction upheld for appellants, except for accused Datta. [Para 10-24]

Delay in FIR – Allegation of inordinate delay in registering the FIR – Examination of the timeline of events – No inordinate delay found – FIR registered within a reasonable time. [Para 19]

Seizure and Recovery – Objection to the necessity of recording disclosure statements and show recovery – Examination of the evidence of seizure and recovery – No fatal inconsistency found – Memorandum of disclosure and recovery subsequently supported the prosecution's case. [Para 21]

Witnesses – Non-examination of certain witnesses – Reliance on the quality of evidence rather than quantity – Convincing and reliable evidence provided by injured witnesses – No substance in the objection regarding non-examination of specific witnesses. [Para 22]

Co-accused acquitted – Appellants challenging the conviction while some co-accused acquitted – Reference to the principle from the Surajit Sarkar case – Conviction upheld for the appellants based on cogent and reliable evidence. [Para 24]

Civil Procedure - Permanent Injunction - Proof of Possession - Specific Relief Act, Section 38 - Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings - Appellant filed suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership and possession of suit land based on a sale deed. The Court held that recitals in the sale deed alone were insufficient to establish possession. The suit land was mortgaged and sold in auction before the filing of the suit. Appellant failed to provide supportive evidence of physical possession and did not implead the bank or the auction purchaser, raising doubts about the suit's intention. Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Proof of Physical Possession - Requirement of Corroborative Evidence - Mere recital in a sale deed is not conclusive proof of possession. Physical possession must be demonstrated through positive and cogent evidence. Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld due to the lack of supporting evidence by the appellant. [Para 7]

Auction Sale and Non-joinder of Necessary Parties - The suit land was auctioned by the Debt Recovery Tribunal before the suit was filed. The appellant’s failure to challenge the auction proceedings or implead the auction purchaser and bank indicated a lack of bona fide intention. [Para 8]

Concurrent Findings of Fact - No Substantial Question of Law - The appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-reasoned and based on evidence. The appellant's claims were unsubstantiated. [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgments and decrees of the lower courts affirmed. [Para 11]

Motor Vehicles – Scheduled Castes Reservation – Multiple Permits – Permissibility – Held – An applicant holding a stage carriage permit under the scheduled caste reservation category is not disqualified from applying for additional permits on other routes under the same category. The notification dated 13.09.1979 explicitly permits up to five permits for firms or cooperative societies. Any reasoning to the contrary is against the law. Petition partly allowed. [Paras 1-21]

Motor Vehicles – Application of Reservation Policy – Issuance of Permits – Held – The reservation policy of 25% for scheduled castes/scheduled tribes as per government notification dated 13.09.1979 applies to all routes and should be enforced. Non-consideration of this policy by the authorities is incorrect. The State must adhere to the mandated reservation percentage in issuing permits. [Paras 14-18]

Motor Vehicles – Inter se Merit Consideration – Remand – Held – The State Transport Appellate Tribunal is directed to reassess the inter se merits of the petitioner and other candidates who applied under the scheduled castes category, ensuring compliance with the reservation policy. Case remanded for fresh adjudication on this basis. [Paras 19-21]

Contract Law - Stamp Duty on Agreements to Sell – Civil Revision against Arbitrator’s order dismissing application to impound agreement for insufficient stamp duty – Agreement to sell executed without delivery of possession does not attract stamp duty under Entry 5(cc) of Schedule 1-A of the Punjab Stamp Act – Arbitration Act provisions limiting judicial intervention in arbitral orders.

Stamp Duty - Agreement to Sell – Analysis – Held – An agreement to sell not followed by or evidencing delivery of possession does not attract stamp duty as a conveyance. The court emphasized strict interpretation of fiscal statutes, noting the distinction between laws in Punjab and Madhya Pradesh regarding stamp duty on such agreements. [Para 18]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – The court dismissed the civil revision petition, affirming the Arbitrator’s decision. It highlighted the limited scope of judicial intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, maintaining that the agreement in question did not warrant impounding for insufficient stamp duty as possession was not delivered under it. [Para 10, 11]

Quashing of FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC – Allegations under Section 8, 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 – Petitioner accused of involvement in transportation of contraband poppy straw – No recovery of contraband from the petitioner – Absence of tangible evidence linking petitioner to the crime – Reliance on disclosure statement of co-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – No call details or payment evidence implicating petitioner – Recent precedent emphasizing the need for substantive evidence – Quashing of FIR and related proceedings for the petitioner. [Para 1-10]

Insufficient Evidence – Mere reliance on co-accused’s disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act not adequate to establish guilt – Lack of corroborative evidence – Reference to recent precedent, Dilip Kumar Vs. State of M.P., emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to implicate an accused. [Para 2-7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 of the CrPC – Principles governing quashing of FIR – Court holds no prima facie case against the petitioner – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed due to absence of legally admissible evidence. [Para 8-10]

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution – Right against self-incrimination – Implication of petitioner based only on co-accused's disclosure statement – No evidence to corroborate the statement – Court finds allegations against petitioner bereft of substance. [Para 3, 18]

Decision – FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner quashed due to absence of legally admissible evidence – Petition under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed. [Para 9-10]