Service Law – Pay Revision and Recovery Notice – Petitioner, initially appointed as a daily wager and later receiving a fixed salary, challenged the recovery of alleged excess salary based on audit objections. High Court quashed the impugned order and recovery notice, directing proper pay revision and payment of arrears [Paras 1-12].

Procedure under Articles 14, 16, and 226 – Petitioner’s rights under constitutional provisions were examined, focusing on the due process for salary recovery and pay revision – Court emphasized the importance of following established procedures and providing fair opportunity for representation [Paras 3-10].

Decision – Petition allowed – Held – Impugned order and recovery notice set aside – Respondents directed to revise the petitioner’s pay and disburse arrears in accordance with established procedures [Paras 11-12].

Pension – Counting of Past Service – Petitioners sought direction for pension consideration by counting their services rendered as daily wagers from their initial appointments. The Court held that the past service of daily wagers must be counted for pension benefits, not just from the date of regularization. Petitioners entitled to pensionary benefits considering services prior to regularization [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Precedents – Pension Rights – Various judgments, including Supreme Court rulings, emphasized that pension is a right and not a bounty. Past services of daily wage employees must be considered for pension if they were regularized later [Paras 9(i)-(xii)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Court directed respondents to count the past services of petitioners for pensionary benefits. The exercise to be completed within twelve weeks. No arrears of salary but past service counted only for pension [Para 10-12].

Parole – Repetition of Petitions – Petitioner sought parole for the daughter’s marriage, previously filed and withdrawn – Concealment of relevant orders – Fresh petition dismissed due to identical cause of action with only a change in marriage date – Petitioner’s conduct deprecable for concealment and repetitive filing [Paras 1-8].

Maintenance of Judicial Records – Misuse of Court’s Process – Emphasizes necessity for petitioners to disclose all relevant orders and not misuse the court’s process by refiling similar petitions with minor changes – Court refrains from imposing costs due to the petitioner’s incarceration [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No costs imposed considering the petitioner’s current confinement [Paras 8-9].

Income Tax – Cancellation of Registration under Section 12A – Power of Commissioner – Retrospective Application – The Commissioner’s order to cancel the registration of the assessee trusts under Section 12A was challenged. The court examined whether the Commissioner had the power to cancel such registration before the amendment of Section 12AA(3) in 2010, which explicitly provided for such power. The court held that prior to this amendment, the Commissioner did not have the express power to cancel registration, and thus, the cancellation orders dated 02.03.2010 and 26.03.2010 were without jurisdiction and authority [Paras 1-17].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Amendment – Legal Principles – The court reaffirmed the principle that quasi-judicial orders cannot be modified or rescinded without express statutory authority. The retrospective application of amendments conferring such powers must be explicit and cannot be implied [Paras 17-18].

Educational Trusts – Charitable Activities – Surplus Income – It was argued by the Revenue that the trusts were engaged in profit-making under the guise of educational activities. The court referred to recent Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that surplus income does not necessarily negate the charitable nature of educational activities, provided such surplus is used for educational purposes [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – ITAT orders upheld – Registrations under Section 12A restored – Commissioner lacked the authority to cancel registrations prior to the 2010 amendment. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines and principles of fairness in administrative actions [Paras 24-26].

Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Challenges to auction sale and procedural irregularities - Petitioner filed multiple CRPs against orders of the Executing Court related to a decree obtained by the respondents due to alleged irregularities in auction sale - CRP No.959 of 2020 challenges dismissal of application to set aside auction sale due to material irregularity and fraud - CRP No.2618 and CRP No.2621 of 2023 challenge orders confirming the auction sale and dismissing application for setting aside auction on deposit of decretal amount, respectively - Interim stay granted by High Court on further proceedings, pending adjudication of these CRPs - Execution court's orders found to be in contravention of interim stay orders, deemed a nullity and set aside - High Court held that CRP No.959 of 2020 against the order under Order 21 Rule 90 is not maintainable as appeal lies against such orders [Paras 1-25]

Decision: CRP No. 959 of 2020 dismissed as not maintainable, remedy by way of appeal suggested. CRP Nos. 2618 and 2621 of 2023 allowed, orders under challenge set aside due to contravention of High Court’s interim stay.

Parole – Grant of Parole – Petitioner sought two weeks parole for daughter’s marriage – Prior similar petition withdrawn – Speaking order revealed parole jumping and subsequent arrest – Petition dismissed due to lack of merit and concealment of material facts [Paras 1-8].

Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed for non-disclosure – Speaking order not presented to the court – Petitioner attempted to mislead court by changing date of marriage in fresh petition – Court condemned petitioner’s conduct [Paras 4-7].

Judicial Process – Maintenance of Judicial Integrity – Emphasis on transparency and full disclosure in petitions – Fresh petition on same cause of action deemed not maintainable – Conduct of petitioner deemed deprecable, avoiding exemplary costs due to incarceration [Paras 5-9].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No costs imposed considering petitioner’s imprisonment [Para 9].
 

Substitution of Legal Representatives – Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal against Family Court’s order allowing substitution of deceased husband’s parents as legal representatives in a petition under Section 11 – Appellant contends proceedings abated upon husband's death – Family Court held Order 22 of CPC applicable, allowing substitution – High Court affirms applicability of Order 22 in Family Court proceedings [Paras 1-32].
Interpretation of "Either Party" – Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act – Discussion on whether parents of deceased petitioner can continue proceedings – High Court relies on precedent to support broader interpretation of “either party” to include legal representatives due to impact on property rights – Garima Singh v. Pratima Singh and Maharani Kusumkumari cases cited [Paras 19-31].
Beneficial Construction – Judicial approach to interpreting statutes – High Court emphasizes beneficial construction to uphold rights under social welfare legislation – Ensures property rights and socio-legal status are protected even after death of a party [Paras 22-27].
Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Substitution of deceased husband’s parents as legal representatives is valid – Petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act to proceed with substituted parties – No illegality in Family Court’s order [Paras 32-33].
 

Interrogatories – Land Acquisition Case – Denial of Application – Petition challenging order of Sub Judge, Vaishali, Hajipur, denying interrogatories to the petitioner – High Court upheld lower court’s decision, emphasizing judicial discretion in allowing interrogatories – Found no error in the order rejecting the interrogatories application [Paras 1-5]​​.

Writ Jurisdiction – Distinction Under Articles 226 and 227 – Reference to Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath ruling that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, but Article 227 can be invoked for supervisory jurisdiction – Emphasized procedural compliance as per amended High Court Rules, converting writ petitions to civil miscellaneous petitions [Paras 2, 3, 4]​​.

Judicial Discretion – Use of Interrogatories – Court emphasized that allowing interrogatories is a matter of judicial discretion aimed at aiding fair trial, not an absolute right – Reiterated the necessity for substantial reason to interfere with trial court’s discretion [Paras 3-5]​​.

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Writ petition converted to Civil Miscellaneous Petition as per procedural requirements – Directed registry to facilitate conversion and prioritize listing before appropriate bench [Paras 4-5]​​.

Writ - Criminal Law – Offence under Section 304(A) IPC for Causing Death by Negligence – Petition for Return of Seized Driving License – The petitioner, K. Perumal, drove a bus involved in a fatal accident, resulting in the registration of a case under Section 304(A) IPC. The second respondent police seized the petitioner's driving license and handed it to the first respondent, the Regional Transport Officer. Despite approaching the first respondent for the return of his license, no action was taken, prompting the present writ petition [Paras 1-3].

Motor Vehicles Act – Licensing Authority’s Power to Revoke or Suspend License – Court’s Previous Ruling Referenced – The petitioner cited a previous order of the court in W.P(MD) No. 2111 of 2021, which addressed a similar issue. The court reviewed the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allow the licensing authority to disqualify or revoke a driving license, provided that the holder is given an opportunity to be heard, and reasons are recorded in writing. In the present case, the license was seized without following these statutory procedures [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The court directed the first respondent to return the driving license to the petitioner forthwith. The order emphasized the requirement for due process under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the seizure of the license without proper notice and opportunity to be heard was unlawful. The ruling aligns with the principles established in previous judgments, ensuring the protection of procedural rights of individuals involved in road traffic incidents [Para 7].