Transfer Order – Quashing – Child Care Leave (CCL) – Competent Authority – Respondent No.5, a Chemist, was granted CCL for 730 days by an unauthorized authority – After availing CCL, respondent No.5 attempted to rejoin at Hisar, which was opposed by the petitioner – Court held the CCL sanction by Engineer-in-Chief invalid as per Government instructions, which require CCL of more than 120 days to be sanctioned by Administrative Secretary – Transfer of petitioner and rejoining of respondent No.5 at Hisar found to be politically influenced and not in public interest – Transfer order quashed [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Fairness – Compliance with Instructions – The sanction of CCL by an unauthorized authority and the stipulation for rejoining at the same place violated Government instructions – Petitioner’s position as Chemist at Hisar, sanctioned by the competent authority, could not be overridden by invalid instructions – Respondent No.5’s prolonged stay at Hisar, despite policy norms, indicated favoritism and extraneous considerations [Paras 8-11].

Political Interference – Judicial Scrutiny – Evidence of political interference in transfer decisions undermines administrative integrity – Court found substantial evidence suggesting administrative machinery was manipulated to favor respondent No.5, treating petitioner as a second-class citizen – Administrative actions based on extraneous considerations cannot be upheld [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Transfer order dated 5.5.2020 quashed – Petitioner to retain position as Chemist at Hisar with all service benefits – Respondent No.5’s stipulation to rejoin at Hisar unenforceable due to improper CCL sanction – Administrative actions must comply with statutory and procedural norms [Para 11].

Medical Registration – Timely Application – Candidate Eligibility – Section 25 of Indian Medical Council Act – Petitioner applied for registration with Delhi Medical Council before the last date for submission of application forms but received the certificate post deadline – Court held that the delay in issuance of the certificate, beyond the petitioner’s control, should not render her ineligible – Petition allowed [Paras 1-23].

Unique Case Facts – No Other Eligible Candidates – Due to pandemic and lack of eligible candidates for 642 Medical Officer posts, court emphasized the necessity of filling vacancies – Petitioner’s merit and completion of selection process validated her claim – Specific order issued based on the peculiar circumstances, emphasizing need for more medical officers [Paras 23-24].

Judicial Precedents – Delay Beyond Control – Reference to Parminder Kaur and Aradhana cases – Courts held that applicants cannot be penalized for delays in certificate issuance by authorities if they applied timely – Consistent judicial approach favoring substantive eligibility over procedural delays [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner's delayed registration certificate issuance by Delhi Medical Council should not invalidate her eligibility – Directed respondents to appoint petitioner as Medical Officer against one of the vacant posts in the general category – Decision based on exceptional circumstances and public interest due to COVID-19 [Paras 27].

Temporary Permits – Granting of Temporary Permits – The petitioners, existing stage carriage permit holders, challenged the granting of temporary permits to private respondents on the same routes – Contention that the temporary permits were issued without proper legal authority and in violation of the petitioners' rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Court held that the State Government was not legally empowered to take the executive decision of granting temporary permits, and the rights of the petitioners were found to be infringed – Temporary permits quashed [Paras 1-32].

Procedure under Motor Vehicles Act – Requirements for Temporary Permits – Court noted that provisions of Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act override those of Chapter V – Temporary permits can only be granted under the proviso to Section 104 after due application of mind – Competent authority failed to record findings on the satisfaction of pre-conditions stipulated under the proviso while granting impugned permits – All procedural requirements under the Act must be adhered to [Paras 4, 10, 19].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Impugned temporary permits set aside – High Court emphasized the need for lawful and reasoned decisions by authorities and mandated that temporary permits be granted only in accordance with the statutory provisions and procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act [Paras 31-32].

Electricity Supply – Applicable Code – NOC Issuance – Petitioners, developers of various residential colonies, sought release of electricity connections as per the supply code applicable at the time of NOC issuance (2007-08) – Court held that the Supply Code, 2014 enables the distribution licensee to insist the developer fulfill updated requirements – Issuance of NOC does not bind the licensee to supply electricity as per old code – Petitioners took 10-11 years to complete projects, hence must comply with current regulations [Paras 1-21].

Infrastructure Development – Developer's Obligations – Distribution Networks – Petitioners failed to fully develop local distribution networks – Court held developers must complete necessary infrastructure before handing over to PSPCL – Distribution licensee justified in requiring compliance with Supply Code, 2014 to ensure proper electricity supply and infrastructure for future demands [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedents – No Automatic Right from NOC – Petitioners relied on Ansal Properties case – Court distinguished that the current case involves statutory obligations under Supply Code, 2014 – NOCs issued for feasibility assessment, not to guarantee old supply code applicability [Paras 17-18].

Consumer Welfare – Complete Infrastructure Requirement – Incomplete infrastructure by developers leads to consumer suffering – Court emphasized necessity of complete local electricity distribution networks before management transfer to PSPCL – Ensuring consumer welfare through compliance with updated regulations [Para 21].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners required to fulfill requirements of Supply Code, 2014 – Issuance of NOC does not exempt developers from updated statutory obligations – Petition dismissed for lack of merit [Paras 22-23].

Pension – Inclusion of Work Charge Service – Any employee who has rendered service on work charge/adhoc basis is entitled to count the period of such service towards the total length of qualifying service for pensionary benefits – Respondent's rejection of pension claim on grounds of not having 20 years of regular service set aside – Estoppel principle applied as petitioner’s voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondent – Orders for pensionary benefits to be released including work charge service period [Paras 1-12].

Voluntary Retirement – Entitlement to Pension – Once the offer of voluntary retirement is accepted, respondent cannot deny pension on grounds of not completing 20 years of regular service – Work charge service period included for pension eligibility – Respondent’s argument regarding regular service rejected [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned order quashed – Respondents directed to release pensionary benefits including work charge service period within 60 days – Compensatory interest awarded for wrongful denial of benefits [Para 12].

Seniority – Fixation by Promotion – Petitioners promoted retrospectively to the post of Food and Supplies Officers from dates of completion of 3 years of experience – Petitioners placed lower than direct recruits in seniority despite earlier retrospective dates – Held, appointments from any source subject to completion of probation – Probation period for direct recruits is 2 years, for promotion is 1 year – Seniority determined by continuous length of service – Completion of probation irrelevant to seniority fixation – Orders placing petitioners lower than direct recruits set aside [Paras 1-14].

Experience and Qualification – Promotion Requirements – Rules required 3 years of experience as Assistant Food and Supplies Officers for promotion – Petitioners lacked few months of required experience – Reconsideration granted retrospective promotion dates aligning with completion of required experience – Seniority must reflect earlier retrospective promotion dates prior to direct recruits’ entry [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Seniority list quashed – Directed fresh seniority list preparation based on dates of promotion for petitioners and direct appointment for respondents within two months [Para 19].

Reservation – Ex-servicemen Category – Lineal Descendants – Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 – Appellant contended non-inclusion of LDESM candidates in the shortlist for mains examination was against the rules and advertisement terms – Court held Clause 11 of the advertisement clearly states LDESM candidates considered only if no ESM candidates are available – With sufficient ESM candidates available, LDESM candidates to be treated as General category – Appellant had no right to be considered under ESM reservation – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-15].

Statutory Interpretation – Specific Provisions – Proviso to Rule 4(1) of 1982 Rules – Reservation for LDESM only applies if ESM candidates not available – Provisions of Rule 4 and advertisement Note 1(b) consistently interpreted – General candidates include LDESM when sufficient ESM candidates present – Claim of right for consideration under ESM reservation without basis [Paras 8-13].

Judicial Review – Administrative Decisions – Shortlisting Process – Appellant scored 180.5 marks against ESM cutoff of 160.5 but not shortlisted – Court found 143 ESM candidates available against 11 reserved posts – ESM candidates adequately filling reserved posts invalidated LDESM claim – Administrative adherence to statutory rules and advertisement terms upheld [Paras 3-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Clause 11 and Rule 4 interpreted to deny LDESM reservation when sufficient ESM available – Appellant’s exclusion from ESM reservation valid – Appeal dismissed with no relief granted [Para 15].a

Eligibility Criteria – Sports Category – Competitive Examination – The appellant applied for the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination 2020 under the Sports Persons category and received an admit card accordingly – During scrutiny, his sports certificates did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsmen (First Amendment) Rules, 2020 – Appellant’s candidature shifted to General category – Court held issuance of admit card does not confer vested right to be considered under Sports Persons category if ineligible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Public Notice – Technical Constraints – Public notice issued before the preliminary examination clarified that admit cards issued based on online application categories were subject to certificate verification – Candidates not meeting Sports Persons criteria would be considered in their basic (General) category – Appellant notified and his candidature shifted accordingly – No vested right accrued due to initial admit card issuance [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Review – Scrutiny and Verification – Court upheld the verification process of sports certificates and adherence to eligibility criteria – The decision to consider appellant in General category due to ineligibility in Sports Persons category found legally valid – No merit in appellant’s claim for provisional candidature under Sports Persons category [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Issuance of admit card in Sports Persons category did not grant vested right if subsequent scrutiny found ineligibility – Public notice provided adequate information – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit and adherence to procedural fairness [Paras 13-14].

Motor Accident Claims – Separate and Distinct Remedies – Section 163-A vs. Section 166 – Simultaneous Proceedings – Remedies under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are independent and separate – Claimants cannot pursue both remedies simultaneously – Section 163-A is based on 'no-fault liability' and applicable for claimants earning less than Rs. 40,000/- p.a., while Section 166 is based on 'fault liability' – If a claim under Section 163-A is found non-maintainable, a claim under Section 166 is permissible [Paras 1-9].

Income Limitation – Section 163-A – The claimant's income exceeding Rs. 40,000/- p.a. renders a claim under Section 163-A non-maintainable – In such cases, a subsequent claim under Section 166 based on fault liability is not barred – Simultaneous benefit from both sections is impermissible, but sequential claims are allowed if initial claim under Section 163-A fails [Para 8-9].

Rash and Negligent Driving – DDR Evidence – Tribunal Findings – The Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving based on the claimant's testimony and DDR (Daily Diary Report) upheld – DDR stating the accident occurred 'suddenly' and 'by chance' does not negate rash and negligent driving if not explicitly stated – Tribunal correctly concluded rash and negligent driving based on evidence presented [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Tribunal's award of compensation affirmed – Simultaneous proceedings under Sections 163-A and 166 impermissible, but subsequent claim under Section 166 after dismissal of Section 163-A claim is valid – Rash and negligent driving sufficiently proved – Appeal dismissed with no merit [Para 10].