Service Law – DLR Employee – Regularisation vs Work-Charged Establishment – Petitioner engaged as Daily Labour Roll (DLR) Watchman in 1984 – Despite availability of regular posts and long service, authorities brought him over to Work-Charged Establishment in 2012 – Petitioner retired in 2015 without pensionary benefits – Held: When employee served continuously for over three decades and similarly situated employees were regularised, action of authorities in denying regular establishment benefits is arbitrary – Authorities directed to consider bringing petitioner to Regular/Pensionable Establishment notionally to enable pensionary benefits [Paras 5, 9-10].

Service Jurisprudence – Long Continuous Service of Casual/NMR/DLR Employees – Obligation of State as Model Employer – Courts emphasised that State cannot exploit employees by extracting service for decades while denying regular benefits – Employees engaged prior to cut-off date and continuously serving are entitled to sympathetic consideration for regularisation and pensionary benefits [Paras 6.3, 6.4, 6.11].

Regularisation – Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997 – Scheme for absorption of NMR/DLR employees – Resolution does not mandate that such employees must first be brought to Work-Charged Establishment before regularisation – Failure of authorities to undertake exercise of regularisation despite long service contrary to scheme and judicial pronouncements [Paras 6.2].

Equality – Article 14 of the Constitution – Discriminatory treatment – Similarly situated employees in other divisions were regularised while petitioner was denied the same benefit – State cannot adopt different standards for employees similarly placed – Principle of parity and consistency applicable [Paras 7.4, 7.11].

Work-Charged Employees – Pensionary Benefits – Courts have repeatedly directed notional absorption in Regular Establishment even by creation of supernumerary post to ensure pensionary benefits to long-serving employees – Denial of pension after decades of service amounts to exploitation by State [Paras 6.7, 7.7, 9.2].

Pension – Social Security Measure – Employee served for about 31 years from 1984 till retirement – State cannot deny pension after extracting long years of service – Welfare State must ensure social security to such employees [Paras 8, 9.1].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Opposite parties directed to consider bringing the petitioner to the Regular/Pensionable Establishment notionally for the period necessary to qualify for pension and extend all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits – Exercise to be completed within three months.

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Religious Shrine – Concurrent Findings – Appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with their possession over agricultural land measuring 8B-0B, including 0B-2B bearing Khasra No. 28//22/2 where a Guga Mari is situated – Trial Court partly decreed the suit but dismissed the claim over 0B-2B where the Guga Mari exists – First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal – High Court finds no substantial question of law – Held: RSA dismissed in limine [Paras 1, 5, 9].

Possession – Proof of Exclusive Possession – Simpliciter Suit for Injunction – Burden of Proof – In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is required to prove exclusive possession over the suit land – Appellants failed to lead any cogent or reliable evidence to establish exclusive possession over the 0B-2B land where the Guga Mari is situated – Both courts concurrently found that the land was being used for worship by the villagers since time immemorial – No evidence, even remotely, pointed to exclusive possession of appellants [Paras 8, 9].

Compromise – Evidentiary Value – Failure to Rebut – Defendant-respondents relied upon compromise document Ex.D1 purportedly signed by Plaintiff-Appellant No. 2 (Goverdhan Singh @ Gordhan Singh), whereby the appellants' family relinquished any right or concern over the Guga Mari land in consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by the villagers – Plaintiff-Appellant No. 2 chose not to enter the witness box – No handwriting expert was examined to dispute the signatures/thumb-impressions on Ex.D1 – Held: Compromise remained unrebutted and operates against the appellants [Para 8].

Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal – Scope – High Court in Regular Second Appeal is competent to interfere only when a substantial question of law arises – Where both Trial Court and First Appellate Court have returned concurrent findings of fact based on evidence on record, and no substantial question of law is demonstrated, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed – Held: No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises in the present case [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments and decrees of the Trial Court dated 29.07.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 18.11.2017 upheld – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Election Law – Rejection of Election Petition – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Returned candidate sought rejection of election petition on ground that pleadings lacked material facts necessary to sustain allegations of corrupt practice and invalid election – Court held that an election petition must disclose a complete cause of action through clear pleadings of material facts and failure to do so renders the petition liable to rejection.

Representation of the People Act – Section 83 – Requirement of Material Facts – An election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies – Material facts constitute the fundamental facts necessary to establish the grounds under Section 100 or corrupt practices under Section 123 – Absence of such foundational facts is fatal to the maintainability of the petition.

Election Petition – Distinction between Material Facts and Particulars – Material facts are the primary facts which constitute the cause of action, whereas particulars are the details that support those facts – Failure to plead material facts cannot be cured by amendment, while deficiency in particulars may be remedied if foundational facts are already pleaded.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope of Examination – While deciding an application for rejection of pleadings, the Court must consider only the averments contained in the election petition and assume them to be true – If the pleadings, even when taken at face value, do not disclose a cause of action under the Representation of the People Act, the petition must be rejected at the threshold.

Election Disputes – Strict Statutory Compliance – Election petitions are purely statutory proceedings and must strictly comply with requirements of the Representation of the People Act – Courts must ensure that election results are not lightly unsettled in the absence of clear and specific pleadings supported by material facts.

Decision: Application seeking rejection of the election petition examined in light of statutory requirements relating to pleading of material facts under the Representation of the People Act and principles governing rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Gratuity claim – Limitation – Interest – Definition of wages – Employees filed applications for gratuity after several years – Employer contested on grounds of limitation and exclusion of special allowance from wages – Held: Where employer fails to issue notice under Section 7(2), limitation under Rule 10 does not apply – Employer liable to pay interest under Section 7(3A) on unpaid amounts – Matter remanded to determine whether special allowance constitutes dearness allowance under Section 2(s) – Petitions partly allowed.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 7(1), Section 7(2) – Limitation – Employer's Obligation – Employees claimed gratuity after gap of several years without filing Form "I" within prescribed time – Employer contended claim barred by limitation – Held: Section 7(2) casts clear obligation on employer to determine gratuity and issue notice whether or not application is made by employee – Second proviso to Rule 10 provides that where employer fails to issue notice under Section 7(2) read with Rule 8, limitation shall not apply – Employer cannot defeat claim by taking advantage of delay when delay contributed to by employer's inaction – Objection on ground of limitation rejected [Paras 18-25]

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 7(3), Section 7(3A) – Interest on Delayed Payment – Employer deposited admitted amount before Controlling Authority but disputed balance – Employee entitled to interest on unpaid portion – Held: Section 7(3A) provides for simple interest where gratuity not paid within thirty days – Proviso creates exception only where delay attributable to employee and employer obtains written permission from Controlling Authority – No such permission obtained – Interest not payable on admitted amount from date of deposit – Interest payable on remaining balance from date specified until actual payment [Paras 26-36]

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 2(s) – Definition of Wages – Special Allowance – Whether special allowance forms part of wages for gratuity calculation – Employer contended special allowance is consolidated component of incentives, not dearness allowance – Held: Character of salary component cannot be determined merely by nomenclature – Depends on purpose of payment, manner of calculation, whether linked to cost of living – Appellate Authority failed to examine whether special allowance is in reality dearness allowance – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on this limited issue [Paras 37-45]

Evidence – Photocopied Documents – Evidentiary Value – Employee relied on photocopied document showing restructuring of perks – Authorities below did not examine original document or record finding about authenticity – Held: When documents produced in photocopy form, authority must examine whether they can be relied upon as secondary evidence – Exercise not carried out – Matter remanded for proper evaluation [Paras 40-41, 43-44]

Decision: Writ petitions partly allowed – Judgments of Appellate Authority dated 19.10.2024 and Controlling Authority dated 09.11.2023 affirmed except as modified – Matter remitted to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration on question whether special allowance constitutes dearness allowance under Section 2(s) and whether documents establish entitlement to gratuity at rate of 26 days – Appellate Authority to decide within eight weeks – No order as to costs.

Hindu Law – Coparcenary Property – Burden of Proof – Declaration Suit – Appellants filed a suit for declaration claiming the suit land to be joint Hindu family coparcenary property and challenging the sale deed dated 23.05.2014 executed by defendant-respondent No. 1 (father/Karta) in favour of defendant-respondent No. 4 for Rs. 7,50,000/- over 6 Kanal of land – Trial Court dismissed the suit on 06.03.2019 – First Appellate Court affirmed dismissal on 10.03.2025 – High Court finds no substantial question of law – Held: RSA dismissed [Paras 1, 4, 8].

Ancestral Property – Four-Generation Rule – Proof Required – To establish the ancestral and coparcenary nature of property, the plaintiff is required to prove that the suit property was inherited through at least four male lineal descendants by way of survivorship – Appellants relied solely on oral testimony and Jamabandis (Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/10) – Revenue records showed property originally owned by Dyal Singh (father of defendant No. 1) who had four sons and two daughters – After his death, estate was inherited by all legal heirs – Held: Appellants proved ancestral nature only to the extent of two generations and failed to establish four-generation coparcenary lineage [Para 7].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 8 – Self-Acquired Property – Property Devolving by Succession – Where coparcenary or joint Hindu family property succeeds on the death of a common ancestor under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act by way of intestate succession and not by survivorship, such property received under intestate succession must be treated as self-acquired property and not coparcenary property – Relied upon: Maan Jain vs. Suraj Parkash Jain, 2018(3) RCR (Civil) 759 – Appellants also failed to prove whether defendant-respondent No. 1 inherited the property by survivorship or by succession under Section 8 [Para 7].

Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – Where both Trial Court and First Appellate Court have returned concurrent findings of fact based on evidence on record and no cogent documentary evidence was produced by the appellants to demonstrate ancestral nature of suit property, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises warranting interference in RSA [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments and decrees of Trial Court dated 06.03.2019 and First Appellate Court dated 10.03.2025 upheld – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Income Tax – Section 197 – Certificate for Lower Deduction – Applicable for Entire Assessment Year, Not Merely Prospective – NHAI obtained a certificate under Section 197(1) on 30.06.2008 for AY 2008-09 authorising deduction at 1% – Assessing Officer held that since payments of Rs.19,61,36,514/- were made between 10.04.2008 to 24.06.2008 before the certificate was issued, the deductor was in default for that period and raised demand of Rs.41,89,78,580/- – ITAT allowed the appeal holding that NHAI cannot be held in default – High Court affirmed, holding that under Section 197(2), once a certificate is given, the deductor shall deduct at the rate specified in the certificate until it is cancelled – As per Rule 28AA(2), the certificate is valid for the entire assessment year specified therein – Since income tax assessment is always for an entire assessment year and every provision is applied for the whole year, the certificate under Section 197 covers the entire AY 2008-09 and is not limited to the period post 30.06.2008 – Held: Questions of law answered against the Revenue – NHAI cannot be held as assessee in default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) was rightly deleted [Paras 13-15]

Decision: All Income Tax Appeals (ITA Nos. 32 to 40 of 2014) dismissed – ITAT orders dated 12.09.2013 and 20.09.2013 upheld – NHAI not liable as assessee in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for the period prior to issuance of Section 197 certificate.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Obscene Posts on WhatsApp – Insult to Modesty of Woman – Sections 509 and 201 IPC, Section 67 IT Act, Section 120(o) Kerala Police Act – The petitioner/accused, a former hotel employee, posted sexually coloured obscene messages targeting CW1 (Human Resources Manager) in a WhatsApp group of present and past employees of the hotel, referring to her private parts and portraying her as a lady of loose morals – He thereafter deleted the posts from his mobile phone to destroy evidence – Held: Prima facie offences under Sections 509 and 201 IPC, Section 67 of the IT Act, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act are made out – Petition devoid of merit – Dismissed [Paras 2, 5, 6].

Section 509 IPC – Insult to Modesty – WhatsApp Group – Victim Not a Member – Irrelevance – The petitioner contended that Section 509 IPC is not attracted as CW1 was not a member of the WhatsApp group where the objectionable posts were made – Held: Since the posts were published in a group of present and past colleagues of CW1, it was obvious that the act was done with the intention to insult her modesty, as she would inevitably come to know of the posts – Mere non-membership of the victim in the WhatsApp group does not exclude applicability of Section 509 IPC [Para 5].

Destruction of Evidence – Section 201 IPC – Deletion of Posts from Mobile Phone – The petitioner deleted the objectionable posts from his mobile phone after publishing them, with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence – Held: Such deliberate deletion constitutes the offence under Section 201 IPC – Allegations in the final report and accompanying records prima facie establish the offence [Para 6].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Electronic Media – Trial Court's Role – The act of making obscene posts through electronic media with intent to insult CW1's modesty prima facie attracts Section 67 of the IT Act – Whether the comments constitute obscenity is a question of fact to be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence – High Court cannot adjudicate the same in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 6].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 471/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Maradu, to continue.

Bail – Economic Offences – AP Liquor Scam – Rs.3,500 Crore – Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 sought regular bail in connection with alleged large-scale irregularities in Andhra Pradesh excise policy and APSBCL functioning – Accused No.8 alleged to be an Operations Commander managing kickback collections, coercing distilleries, and facilitating laundering of funds abroad – Accused Nos.35 and 36 alleged to have organised and supervised logistics of cash transportation to influence the AP General Elections 2024 – Held: Gravity of offence alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail where investigation is substantially complete and accused have been in prolonged custody – All three Petitioners entitled to bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 3, 4, 5, 22, 26].

Bail – Principles Governing Grant – Economic Offences – Factors to be Considered – Court reiterated that considerations for grant of bail include: nature and severity of accusation; reasonable apprehension of witness tampering; likelihood of abscondence; character and standing of accused; and larger public interest – Economic offences constitute a class apart warranting cautious approach, particularly for alleged kingpins, given their impact on national financial health and societal fabric – However, even in grave economic offences, bail is not to be denied as an absolute rule; each case must be decided on its own facts [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances – Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody – Article 21 – Charge sheet having been filed and investigation being substantially complete as against the Petitioners, continued pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial was found to infringe the right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Filing of charge sheet, prolonged custody, and absence of material indicating risk of abscondence or interference with trial constitute sufficient changed circumstances to justify grant of bail in successive applications [Paras 19, 21, 24, 26].

Parity – Co-Accused – Bail Not an Absolute Claim – Principle of Parity – Accused No.38, alleged to be closely connected with Petitioners/Accused Nos.35 and 36, had already been granted bail – Other co-accused similarly placed in terms of allegations were also enlarged on bail – Held: Parity is not an absolute right and applies only where roles are similar; however, in the absence of material distinction justifying differential treatment, continued detention of the Petitioners was not warranted – Parity is focused on the role of the accused in the commission of the crime, not merely on the thread of the same offence [Paras 20, 25].

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards – Upon grant of bail, the Petitioners directed to: execute personal bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties; surrender passports; not leave India without Court's permission; report to Investigating Officer every Saturday; not contact prosecution witnesses or co-accused; disclose all movable and immovable properties within two weeks; not alienate properties identified by prosecution; not publish or disseminate information about the crime till conclusion of trial; and furnish active mobile numbers to the Investigating Agency [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 13503 & 13504 of 2025 and 27 of 2026 allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 8, 35 and 36 directed to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions – Observations in the order not to be construed as opinion on the merits of the crime.

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Wills Executed Abroad – Two Wills dated 05.04.1999 and 17.04.1999 executed by Dr. M. Leela Rama Krishna Prasad (testator), a doctor settled in the USA, in favour of a private charitable trust were challenged as unproved and surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Trial Court disbelieved the Wills and granted a half share to the testator's widow Smt. Padmaja – On appeal, Division Bench found that D.W.4 (attending physician and attestor), an independent and credible witness of impeccable standing, had proved the execution of the Will dated 17.04.1999, satisfying the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Held: The Will of 17.04.1999 is proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad in India to devolve in accordance with the said Will [Paras 23–66].

Proof of Will – Testamentary Capacity – Sound and Disposing Mind – Testator Hospitalised – The testator executed the Will of 05.04.1999 in the afternoon at D.W.4's residence, prior to his hospitalisation in the evening on account of chest pain – Medical records (Ex.A7) showed the testator was actively participating in decisions about his treatment and was improving; doctors had contemplated discharge on 18.04.1999 – Evidence of P.W.2 (forensic specialist) opining that heavy sedation impaired the testator's mental capacity was insufficient to rebut the medical records – Held: Testator was in a sound and disposing mind at the time of executing both Wills [Paras 37–39].

Proof of Will – Custody of Will – Attestation by Indian Consulate in San Francisco – Affidavit of Widow Acknowledging Will – Ambiguity in chain of custody and attestation by the Indian Consulate in San Francisco (instead of Atlanta) noted as suspicious circumstances – However, Smt. Padmaja's own affidavit dated 31.01.2000 (Ex.B6) acknowledged execution of the Will of 17.04.1999 and its attestation by the Consulate – Widow's legal notice of 11.01.2002 sought copies of Wills rather than denying their existence – Held: Taking an overall view, the Wills were executed by Dr. Prasad and reflect his wishes; suspicious circumstances do not warrant rejection [Paras 40–51, 66].

Proof of Will – Non-Examination of Second Attesting Witness – Section 68 Evidence Act – Will of 17.04.1999 attested by D.W.4 and Dr. Amaraneni Swarajya – Only D.W.4 examined – Held: Section 68 requirements are satisfied upon examination of at least one attesting witness alive, subject to process of Court, and capable of giving evidence – Non-examination of K.R.K. Murthy (who was an attesting witness to the Will of 05.04.1999) not fatal, as the Will of 05.04.1999 was superseded by the Will of 17.04.1999 [Paras 34–35].

Proof of Will – Foreign Will – Probate in Foreign Country – Section 213 and 228, Indian Succession Act – Contention that a Will executed in USA must first be probated in an American court before it can be produced in India – Held: Section 228 operates in a situation where a Will already probated abroad cannot be produced in original, and permits letters of administration on certified copy – It does not prohibit production of a Will executed outside India before an Indian court without foreign probate – Courts in Andhra Pradesh do not have jurisdiction to grant probate; hence, Wills executed by Hindus for properties in Andhra Pradesh can always be proved in civil proceedings without probate [Paras 55–59].

Proof of Will – Hague Convention – Conflict of Laws – Form of Testamentary Dispositions – Will executed in USA, relating to immoveable properties in India – Held: Under the Convention on the Conflict of Laws relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (1961), a testamentary disposition is valid as to form if it complies with the law of the place where the immoveable properties are situated – Will of 17.04.1999 being in conformity with Indian law is valid; Convention does not bar its production before an Indian court [Paras 59–61].

Lok Adalat – Challenge by Writ Petition – Jurisdiction – Fraud – Awards obtained by Lok Adalat at Eluru in O.S.Nos.445 and 446 of 2019 directed Sri Hemanth Kumar to execute sale deeds in favour of third parties in respect of properties belonging to the estate of Dr. Prasad – Sri Hemanth Kumar had suppressed the pendency of the appeal, the preliminary decree in O.S.No.69 of 2002, and the fact that he had no individual title over the property – Settlement was entered into in individual capacity, not as power of attorney holder – Held: Such suppression of material facts and deliberate misleading of the Lok Adalat amounts to fraud vitiating the awards – Awards set aside [Paras 71–73, 101–103].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction of Court – Section 17 CPC – Cause of Action – Properties Situated in Different Districts – Suits filed in Eluru in relation to properties situated both in West Godavari District and Vijayawada Rural Mandal – Cause of action pleaded pertained only to interference over West Godavari property – No cause of action pleaded in relation to Vijayawada properties – Held: Court in Eluru had no jurisdiction over properties in Vijayawada Rural Mandal; Lok Adalat constituted for Eluru court consequently lacked jurisdiction to pass awards in relation to Vijayawada properties [Paras 94–99].

Public Charitable Trust – Existence – Registration – Endowments Act – Trust created by Will of 17.04.1999 for benefit of mother of testator and thereafter for education and health of deserving persons – Trust never registered with Endowments Department – Held: Under Section 1(3) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, all public charitable institutions whether registered or not fall within the Act – Absence of registration does not prevent trust from coming into existence – Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and has come into existence [Paras 76–83].

Public Trust – Joinder of Trustees – Juristic Entity – Section 14 and 29, Endowments Act – Whether all trustees must join in all proceedings – Held: Under Section 14 of the Endowments Act, trust property vests in the institution, conferring juristic personality – Under Section 29(3)(b)(iii), the Executive Officer shall sue or be sued in name of the institution – In absence of an Executive Officer, Trustee can file proceedings – Writ Petitions filed by Trustee on behalf of Trust held maintainable [Paras 84–88].

Sale Deeds – Writ Petition – Registration Act – Sections 81 and 82 – Scope of Enquiry – Enquiry initiated under Section 81 and 82 of the Registration Act into deeds of sale (Doc. Nos. 3567 and 3568 of 2023) executed after death of principal – Held: Sections 81 and 82 do not independently empower cancellation of registered documents – Enquiry may proceed to ascertain infractions and for punitive purposes – Declaration of nullity of a document is within exclusive domain of civil court – Petitioners relegated to O.S.No.1692 of 2023 already filed for cancellation of sale deeds [Paras 89–92, 105–107].

Remand – Implead Petitioners – Rights of Agreement Holders – Agreements of sale executed by power of attorney holder of Dr. Prasad in favour of third parties prior to testator's death – Question of whether power of attorney coupled with interest survived death of principal left open – Held: Rights of implead petitioners over lands under agreements of sale and their possession to be adjudicated afresh by trial court on remand – Scope of enquiry restricted to this aspect only; validity of Will not to be reopened [Paras 116–128].

Decision: AS Nos.645 of 2013 and 707 of 2014 – Will of 17.04.1999 held proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad to devolve in accordance with said Will – Implead petitioners impleaded as respondents for limited purpose – Matters remanded to trial court for determining rights of implead petitioners over claimed lands – W.P. Nos. 3325 & 3807 of 2020 and 15383, 15403 of 2021 allowed; Lok Adalat Awards dated 21.01.2020 set aside – W.P. No. 13966 of 2023 dismissed; Trust at liberty to pursue O.S. No. 1692 of 2023 – W.P. No. 16510 of 2023 disposed of with direction that Section 81/82 enquiry may proceed within its limited scope – C.C. No. 5225 of 2023 closed.