Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 - Frivolous Petitions by the State – State filed a petition against the Labour Court’s award of ₹50,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement for the respondent – Court held the petition frivolous and exhibiting heartlessness and apathy towards the respondent – Labour Court had refused reinstatement and granted compensation after six years of service – Petition dismissed with costs, citing it as a violation of the Industrial Disputes Act. [Paras 1, 5]

Industrial Law - Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Respondent was a sweeper at a government primary school, terminated without compliance with statutory safeguards under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act – Labour Court’s decision to award compensation rather than reinstatement was deemed appropriate – State’s attempt to contest this minimal compensation criticized as vexatious. [Paras 2-3, 5]

Judicial Critique - National Litigation Policy and Costs on Frivolous Appeals – Supreme Court’s observations in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala v. Atma Singh Grewal applied – Court condemned the State’s irresponsible litigation against meager compensation, imposing costs on the State and officials responsible for the decision – Reaffirmed that public money should not be wasted on frivolous appeals. [Paras 5-7]

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 payable by the State to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within two months – Costs to be recovered from officers who made the decision to retrench the respondent and file the petition – Default in payment will attract 12% interest till deposit. [Paras 7-10]

Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Managerial and Supervisory Roles – Respondent-workman reinstated with full back wages after Industrial Tribunal found she was not performing managerial or supervisory duties – Designation as 'Senior Executive Customer Support and Training' not indicative of managerial role – High Court held, respondent fell within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act – The duties performed did not involve managerial decisions binding on the company – Job title alone does not determine the nature of duties. [Paras 17-18]

Resignation and Withdrawal - Legal Validity – Respondent submitted a resignation letter specifying a future date – Withdrawal of resignation before the effective date was legally valid – High Court held, resignation letter acts as notice of resignation effective from the specified future date – Premature acceptance by management amounted to termination – Termination without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act deemed illegal. [Paras 11-14]

Judicial Review - Interference with Tribunal Findings – High Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 – Interference warranted only for errors apparent on record or perversity – Findings of fact by the Tribunal, supported by evidence, are generally not re-examined – Writ jurisdiction is not an appeal mechanism. [Paras 20-21]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Industrial Tribunal's award upheld – Respondent’s reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages maintained – Interim stay on respondent's transfer from Jalandhar to Lucknow made absolute. [Paras 22-23]

Service Law - Withdrawal of Benefits Post-Retirement - Proficiency Step-Ups and ACP – Petitioner, a retired Superintendent, contested the withdrawal of proficiency step-ups granted in 1993 and 1999 and subsequent recoveries from her gratuity and leave encashment – Held, as per Rule 9.4(b)(iii) read with Rule 6.19(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, for reckoning pension, only the correctness of emoluments for the 24 months preceding the retirement date should be verified – Withdrawal of benefits and recoveries for periods beyond this scope deemed contrary to the rules – Impugned orders quashed. [Paras 12, 14]

Judicial Principles - Verification of Emoluments for Pension Calculation – The rules mandate verification of the last drawn pay and emoluments for the 24 months before retirement, not for any period before that – Accountant General’s action of examining the entire service record for step-ups correctness found unjustified – Withdrawal of increments granted years ago contravened the specified rules. [Paras 9, 12]

Supreme Court Precedents - Recovery from Retiral Benefits – Cited State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih prohibiting recovery from retiral dues if the benefits were granted long back and recovery affects retired employees financially – Similar decision in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department upheld quashing pay re-fixation and recovery orders. [Paras 12, 13]

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders dated 27.12.2013 and 26.05.2014 withdrawing proficiency step-ups and subsequent recovery orders dated 11.07.2014 and 23.06.2014 quashed – Amounts recovered to be refunded with 9% interest per annum from recovery date till payment – Compliance within three months from order receipt. [Para 14]

SARFAESI Act - Jurisdiction of DRT vs. Civil Court – Respondent No. 2, a partnership firm, defaulted on a loan, and respondent No. 4, a partner, mortgaged a house – Petitioner-bank initiated recovery under SARFAESI Act – District Magistrate ordered symbolic possession, relegating tenancy disputes to Civil Court – Held, the DRT has exclusive jurisdiction to decide tenancy issues under Section 17(4-A) post-amendment – Order directing Civil Court recourse found erroneous. [Paras 10-12]

Evidentiary Considerations - Tenancy Claims and Mortgage – No tenancy mentioned when loan availed in 2008; claimed tenancy started in 2002 – Respondent No. 4's affidavit and Securitization Application (SA) did not mention tenancy – Claims of tenancy found collusive to obstruct recovery – Court noted no protection under Rent Control Act if tenancy created post-mortgage. [Paras 11, 13]

Judicial Precedents - SARFAESI Act and Tenancy Issues – Reference to Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. reaffirmed DRT’s jurisdiction – Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India cited but distinguished as tenancy creation timing and SARFAESI Act’s supremacy upheld. [Paras 10, 11]

Misuse of Legal Process - Collusive Litigation – Respondent No. 5's civil suit for injunction found collusive, initiated by respondents to protect possession – Affidavits and pleadings failed to substantiate genuine tenancy – Directed petitioner to consider civil and criminal proceedings against respondents for false pleadings. [Paras 13-14]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order of District Magistrate set aside – DRT affirmed as proper forum for tenancy disputes related to SARFAESI actions – Respondent No. 4 ordered to p

Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Co-Sharers – The petitioner filed for permanent injunction and sought ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Trial Court granted ad-interim injunction directing status quo regarding the suit property – ADJ vacated the injunction citing reliance on an unproven Will – High Court held that declining the injunction based on an unproven Will would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner – Will yet to be proved by respondents – Ad-interim injunction reinstated till the final decision of the suit. [Paras 6, 9, 12]

Judicial Principles - Injunction Between Co-Sharers – Injunction typically not granted between co-sharers unless exclusive possession by the plaintiff is established – However, given the stage of the suit and potential irreparable harm to the petitioner, the ad-interim injunction was deemed necessary – High Court emphasized the trial court's jurisdiction in granting the injunction and noted the ADJ’s error in vacating it. [Paras 9, 10]

Evidentiary Considerations - Proof of Will – The primary defense of the respondents based on a Will was yet to be proved – Granting or vacating an injunction based on an unproven document is inappropriate – Interim relief aims to preserve the status quo and prevent harm pending litigation. [Paras 6, 8]

Decision: Civil revision petition allowed – Order of the Additional District Judge dated 03.07.2014 set aside – Order of the Trial Court dated 03.04.2013 reinstated – Parties to maintain status quo regarding possession and alienation of the suit property till the final decision of the suit. [Paras 11-13]

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims - Determination of Income - Future Prospects – The deceased, Sukhdev Singh, died in an accident on 4.04.2009 at the age of about 40 years – Claimant, his widow, asserted he was an agriculturist earning ₹25,000 per month – Tribunal found no documentary evidence of land ownership or cultivation by the deceased – Income assessed based on minimum wages in Punjab in 2009, i.e., ₹3,302 per month, not ₹3,000 as initially considered – Future prospects not added due to lack of cogent evidence and absence of extraordinary circumstances – Appeal for income enhancement allowed in part, considering proper income but excluding future prospects. [Paras 1-5, 9-10]

Legal Standards - Addition of Future Prospects – Citing Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan and Sarla Verma v. DTC, court emphasized that future prospects are to be considered only in exceptional circumstances – Current case lacked extraordinary evidence to warrant future prospects addition – Divergent opinions in case law noted, pending authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench. [Paras 6-7, 9]

Evidentiary Standards - Proof of Occupation and Income – Deceased’s occupation as a labourer accepted due to absence of educational qualifications, bank records, or agricultural land ownership documents – Claimant’s oral statements insufficient without documentary support – Tribunal’s decision to calculate income based on minimum wages upheld. [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Income reassessed at ₹3,302 per month – Compensation recalculated with 50% deduction for personal expenses, resulting in dependency of ₹1,651 per month – Total compensation of ₹2,97,180 plus ₹1,00,000 for loss of consortium and ₹25,000 for funeral expenses, totaling ₹4,22,180 – Tribunal’s award of ₹2,85,000 deducted, resulting in an additional ₹1,37,180 payable by the insurance company with 6% interest from July 2012. [Paras 11-13]

Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Incentive Marks for Rural Service – Petitioners, Rural Medical Officers, challenged Clause 17(iii) of the notification dated 29.03.2017 – The clause restricted the incentive of 30% marks for rural service to PCMS/PCMS(Dental) doctors and for admission to government colleges only – Held, the incentive must be granted to all those who rendered service in rural/difficult areas, including petitioners – Restriction to government doctors only was irrational and lacked reasonable nexus with the objective of encouraging rural service – Clause 17(iii) deemed violative of Regulation 9(iv) of MCI Regulations. [Paras 1-3, 31-32, 36]

Medical Law - Application of Incentive Marks in Private Institutions – The court also addressed the limitation of the incentive for admissions to only government institutions – Held, this limitation is violative of Regulation 9(iv) of MCI Regulations – Incentives must also apply to private institutions – Regulation 9(iv) aims to encourage rural service irrespective of the type of institution for postgraduate admission. [Paras 10, 40]

Administrative Law - Validity of Eligibility Criteria – Challenge to Clause 17(iv)(a)(ii) regarding eligibility criteria for incentives – Held, eligibility criteria altering the manner of determining merit from the graded scale as prescribed in Regulation 9(iv) was illegal – The state cannot modify the criteria set by MCI – Notification clause contradicting MCI Regulation 9(iv) invalidated. [Paras 46-47]

Decision: Petition allowed – Clause 17(iii) and 17(iv)(a)(ii) of the notification dated 29.03.2017 were struck down – Rural Medical Officers entitled to the same benefits as PCMS/PCMS(Dental) doctors for service in remote/difficult areas – Incentives to apply to both government and private institutions – Merit list for admissions to be recast per these directions. [Paras 49-50]

Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Departmental Inquiry – Petitioner, an Additional General Manager, challenged the dismissal from service following a departmental inquiry – Held, judicial review in departmental inquiries focuses on whether proper procedure was followed and principles of natural justice were adhered to – Petitioner received a fair hearing, could lead evidence, and objected to the inquiry officer – No interference in the findings of the inquiry officer or the punishment order warranted – No parity found between the petitioner and other officers who were dealt with leniently or exonerated. [Paras 14-16]

Administrative Law - Punishment and Acquittal - Different Yardsticks – Petitioner acquitted in criminal cases argued this should impact departmental inquiry findings – Court held, the yardstick for proof in criminal proceedings differs from departmental inquiries – Acquittal in criminal cases does not automatically nullify charges in departmental inquiries – Punishment of dismissal upheld. [Para 17]

Judicial Principles - Scope of Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – Court can interfere in disciplinary proceedings only if procedural lapses or violations of natural justice are evident – Reappraisal of evidence or conclusions from the inquiry officer not within the court's purview – Proper procedure was followed, and principles of natural justice complied with – No grounds for judicial interference found. [Paras 8, 15]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Findings of the inquiry officer and dismissal order upheld – Principles of natural justice complied with – No parity between the petitioner and other officers referred to – Discharge or acquittal in criminal cases irrelevant to departmental inquiry outcomes. [Paras 16-18]

issal from service following a departmental inquiry alleging irregularities in financial advancements.

Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Grounds and Limitations – Petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that her husband (defendant No.2) was suffering from a serious mental disorder and could not be sued – Trial Court dismissed the application, stating that the plaint alone is to be considered for Order 7 Rule 11 applications, and any factual disputes must be determined at trial – Revision petition against this order also dismissed – Held, grounds under Order 7 Rule 11 are specific, including non-disclosure of cause of action and bar under any law – Medical condition of the defendant is a matter to be determined by evidence at trial, not at the stage of plaint rejection. [Paras 13, 17]

Judicial Interpretation - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Limited Scope – Court emphasized that only the plaint is to be examined to determine whether it discloses a cause of action or is barred by law – Genuineness of documents like medical certificates challenging mental condition are matters of evidence, not to be decided at the plaint rejection stage – Supreme Court precedents confirm that plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power meant to filter out suits without legal basis, not to adjudicate evidentiary disputes. [Paras 13, 15]

Case Law - Procedural Safeguards and Fair Trial – References made to Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra and I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal underscoring the need to examine the plaint in its entirety for a cause of action – Court reaffirmed that striking out pleadings or portions thereof under Order 7 Rule 11 should not be based on defenses or documents not part of the plaint – Ensures the defendant’s contentions and evidence are considered during the trial. [Paras 9, 11, 15]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Trial Court’s order upheld – Application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed as issues related to defendant’s mental condition and document genuineness are to be decided at trial – No interference warranted. [Paras 17-18]