Service Law - Pension - Daily Wage Service - Regularization - Continuity of Service - New Pension Scheme-Pension - Counting of Daily Wage Service – Civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging conditions in the regularization of service – Held: The petitioner, who worked as a daily wager from 01.01.1995 and whose services were regularized in 2014, is entitled to count his daily wage service for pensionary benefits. The Labour Court award granting reinstatement with continuity of service implies that the petitioner had unbroken service from 1995, qualifying him for pension under the old scheme. [Paras 3, 11]

New Pension Scheme - Applicability – Analysis – Held: Despite the regularization of service in 2014, the petitioner is not governed by the New Pension Scheme due to the continuity of service established from 1995. The Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, specifically Rule 14(4), support this position, allowing service from contingencies followed by regularization to count as qualifying service for pension. [Paras 4, 9]

Arrears of Pay - Entitlement – Consideration – Held: The petitioner is not entitled to arrears of difference in pay from the date of regularization but is entitled to pensionary benefits counting from the date of his initial daily wage service. Arrears of pension are limited to three years before the date of the order. [Paras 11, 12]

Appointment of Lambardar - Choice of Collector - Interference by Higher Authorities - Held, the choice of the Collector cannot be lightly interfered with unless there is some perversity or illegality in the order - Collector considered the comparative merits of all candidates - Found respondent no.4 more qualified, younger, and financially stronger - Appointment upheld. [Para 12, 15]

Collector’s Decision - Comparative Merits Considered - Found Respondent No.4 was better suited - Graduate, younger, and had prior experience assisting former Lambardar - Financial strength and community support considered. [Paras 2, 15]

Pendency of Litigation and Financial Default - Relevance in Appointment - Held, petitioner being a bank loan defaulter at the time of Financial Commissioner's decision - Rule 15(d) and Rule 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules consider indebtedness in appointment and dismissal of Lambardar - Financial default a significant demerit. [Paras 16]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - Court finds no illegality or perversity in the Collector's order - Financial Commissioner rightly set aside the Commissioner’s re-evaluation - Petition dismissed. [Paras 17, 19]

NDPS Act - Compliance with Section 42 - Conviction Challenged - Search and Seizure from Private Vehicle - Secret information not reduced to writing - No evidence of information conveyed to senior officer - Held, a private vehicle does not qualify as a 'public place' under Section 43 - Provisions of Section 42 are mandatory - Conviction set aside due to non-compliance with Section 42. [Para 12]

Search and Seizure - Requirements under NDPS Act - Applicability of Section 42 vs. Section 43 - Held, private vehicle is not a 'public place' - Section 42 applies and mandates writing down information and informing higher officers - Non-compliance with Section 42 invalidates the proceedings. [Para 12]

Decision - Conviction Set Aside - Court sets aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 15 of the NDPS Act due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 42. [Paras 13]

Employment Law - Termination of Temporary Employee - Misconduct Allegations - Requirement for Enquiry - Termination of services of a temporary employee on grounds of alleged embezzlement of Rs.6 without conducting a formal enquiry—Order deemed stigmatic and punitive—Court held that such termination necessitates a formal enquiry to establish misconduct—Absence of such an enquiry renders the termination order invalid—Second appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Nature of Termination Order - Stigmatic versus Simpliciter - Analysis - Held, termination order referencing allegations of misconduct (embezzlement) cannot be classified as an order simpliciter—Such orders are punitive in nature and mandate a formal enquiry to substantiate the charges—Reference to Supreme Court's distinction between 'motive' and 'foundation' in termination orders. [Para 7-9]

Decision - Reinstatement and Retiral Benefits - Court upholds reinstatement of the respondent—Directs the State to decide on representation for release of retiral benefits and issue a speaking order if benefits are owed. [Paras 12-13]

Eviction of Tenants - Definition of 'Residential Building' - Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Words 'residential building' will include and mean 'non-residential building' as well - Held, once residential building includes non-residential building for eviction under Section 13, the same applies to sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13. [Para 11]

Proof of Ownership - Eviction of Tenants - Documents Establishing Ownership - Landlord's documents marked but not exhibited - Tenant's objection to admissibility not raised at the relevant time - Held, once document proved on record without objection, no justification for not exhibiting it - Tenant cannot object to admissibility later - Re-allotment remains unchallenged. [Para 12.1]

Dispute of Ownership - Tenant Not Entitled - Section 3 of the Act - Owner is always landlord and included in definition of landlord - Held, tenant cannot dispute landlord’s ownership - Ownership automatically transfers to new owner on property transfer - Relevant Supreme Court ruling referred. [Para 12.5]

Subsequent Events in Eviction Petitions - Determining Bonafide Need - Held, need of landlord to be assessed at time of filing eviction petition - Subsequent events not to defeat eviction petition - Litigation pendency not to advantage either party. [Para 13.2]

Decision - Revision Petition Dismissed - Court dismisses tenant's revision petition, upholds orders of eviction by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority - Three months' time granted to tenant to vacate the premises. [Paras 15-17]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances – Procedural Irregularities – Conviction Appeal – Non-compliance with Sections 100 and 165 CrPC amounts to mere irregularity – Evidence of official witnesses deemed credible – Conviction upheld – Sentence reduced considering the appellant’s age and trial duration. [Paras 1-12]

Evidence Law – Credibility of Official Witnesses – Held – Testimony of official witnesses not to be doubted solely due to their official status – Independent corroboration not always necessary – Testimonies subjected to cross-examination found credible. [Para 10]

Sentence Reduction – Age and Trial Duration Consideration – Appellant aged 30 at charge framing, faced trial for over 19 years – No further criminal activity post bail – Sentence reduced to time already undergone, fine upheld. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Conviction under Section 15 of NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine to be paid within three months or additional imprisonment if defaulted – Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 12-14]

Transfer of Investigation – Denial of Transfer to CBI – Petitioner's request for transfer of investigation to CBI in a case involving allegations of assault, gang rape, and death of petitioner’s mother denied – Court found that the police and trial court had adequately addressed the concerns raised, with further investigation directed by the trial court where necessary. [Para 2, 10-31]

Trial Court’s Role and Directions – The trial court's comprehensive review of the investigation, including allegations of gang rape, cause of death, and theft, led to additional directions for further investigation and filing of a supplementary chargesheet – Petitioner's dissatisfaction with the police investigation addressed by trial court’s directions. [Para 11-23, 25]

Judicial Scrutiny of Investigation – High Court upholds the trial court's findings and directions, emphasizing that the investigation was conducted adequately with additional enquiries as needed – Court notes that further investigation is not warranted at this stage. [Para 16, 20, 24, 28]

Invocation of CBI Investigation – Supreme Court precedents cited to emphasize that directing CBI to investigate is an extraordinary measure, not to be used routinely but only in exceptional situations – Present case does not warrant such an intervention. [Para 27]

Role of Amicus Curiae – Appreciation expressed for the Amicus Curiae's assistance, with the Court noting unsubstantiated allegations made against them by the petitioner – Court emphasizes the Amicus Curiae's expertise and contribution to the case. [Para 32-33]

Decision – Petition for transfer of investigation to CBI or any other quasi-judicial body dismissed due to adequate investigation and intervention by the trial court, and lack of evidence for police collusion with accused. [Para 31, 34]

Railways Claims Tribunal Act – Appeal against RCT decision – Claim for compensation for the death of a passenger in a railway accident – RCT’s decision based on the location of the deceased’s body and nature of injuries – Appeal allowed and compensation awarded. [Para 1, 7-14]

Factual Matrix – Deceased's accidental fall from a train and subsequent death – Initially contested by Railways citing body’s location on different track – Appellants sought compensation under RCT Act. [Para 2-5, 7]

Issue Framing – Determination of bona fide passenger status, incident's coverage under Railways Act, claimants' dependency, and relief. [Para 6]

Analysis and Decision – RCT's flawed reasoning regarding the body's location and nature of injuries – Observations on passenger status and accidental death – RCT decision set aside, compensation awarded with interest. [Para 8-14]

Compensation – Awarded statutory compensation with interest, apportioned among the deceased's family members. [Para 14]

Order – RCT’s decision set aside, respondent/railways directed to pay compensation within two months, failing which interest rate increased. [Para 14-15]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Procedural Violations – Appeals against conviction under Section 15 of NDPS Act – Prosecution failed to comply with Sections 52 and 52A – Samples not produced before magistrate for certification – Appellants not informed of arrest grounds – Mandatory procedural breaches caused serious prejudice – Appeals allowed, convictions set aside. [Paras 1-17]

Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Failure – Held – Prosecution failed to produce case property before magistrate for inventory certification and sample drawing – Violation of Section 52A mandates quashing of trial – Convictions unsustainable. [Para 9]

Mandatory Arrest Procedure – Section 52 NDPS Act – Held – Arresting officer failed to inform appellants of arrest grounds – No compliance with Section 52 requirements – Serious procedural breach affecting fairness of trial. [Para 12]

Sample Handling and Delays – Standing Order No. 1/89 – Held – Only one sample drawn from each bag in violation of mandatory requirement of two samples – Delay in sending samples to FSL unexplained – Procedure vitiated. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Due to procedural violations and non-compliance with NDPS Act provisions, convictions and sentences quashed – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released if not required in any other case. [Paras 17-19]