Lease Agreement – Return of Possession – Landlord’s Obligation – Tenant Bank offered possession after lease expiry – Landlord refused due to condition of premises – Court held landlord has no right to refuse possession for any reason after lease expiry – Delay in transfer caused by landlord’s refusal – Landlord not entitled to rent/arrears for period after lease expiry until possession taken – Right to approach Civil Court for grievances against tenant upheld [Paras 1-21].

Lease Terms – Condition of Premises – Clause Interpretation – Clause 2(j) of lease deed required premises to be returned in condition consistent with lease terms – Court found Bank complied by offering possession with RCC structure as per lease – Landlord’s refusal based on structure’s presence unjustified – Lease conditions not breached by Bank [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Review – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Court’s duty to correct misappreciation of evidence – Concurrent findings disrupted due to incorrect interpretation of lease terms and misappreciation of evidence by lower courts – Second appeal allowed to rectify injustice [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Held – Judgments and decrees of lower courts reversed – Landlord not entitled to rent for delay caused by their own refusal to take possession – Costs awarded to appellant [Paras 21-24].

Employment Law – Withdrawal of Resignation – Bank Policy – Petition challenging the reversal of the trial court’s decision, which had declined interim injunction to reinstate the respondent. Bank policy allowed withdrawal of resignation through physical mode even if initially accepted online. The bank permitted the respondent to work until the last date mentioned in his resignation notice, thus, recognizing his continued employment. Held, respondent had the right to withdraw his resignation up to the last date mentioned in his resignation notice. Petition dismissed, upholding respondent’s right to withdraw resignation and continue employment [Paras 1-15]​​.

Decision: Petition dismissed. The respondent’s right to withdraw his resignation before the last date mentioned in the resignation notice is upheld. The respondent is reinstated as per the order of the Appellate Court​​.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction – Petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the plaint must be read as a whole along with its accompanying documents. The challenge was to the conveyance deed and municipal assessment entries, not to any notice or proceedings under the Haryana Municipal Act. Held, there was no statutory bar to the civil court’s jurisdiction, and the rejection of the plaint was justified due to the involvement of public interest in the property's transfer and usage by the Municipal Committee [Paras 1-18]​​.

Decision: The present revision petition is dismissed. The order by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham, rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is upheld​​.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Serious Allegations – Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving serious allegations under multiple sections of IPC, SC/ST Act, and IT Act. Allegations included rape, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and recording and storing objectionable material. Held - given the gravity of the charges and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. The petitioner’s suppression of his criminal past further negates his eligibility for discretionary relief. Petition dismissed [Paras 1-13]​​.

Decision: Petition dismissed. The court held that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not meant for a person who suppresses facts about his criminal past and approaches the court with tainted hands​​.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Compromise – Petition filed for quashing of DDR under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC in FIR under Sections 323, 324, 325, 148, 149 IPC, and the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. Statements of parties recorded before SDJM, confirming the compromise was voluntary. The petitioner appeared before the trial court and was granted bail. Held, the purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to secure the presence of the accused, which has been achieved. Therefore, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender ceases to operate. Petition allowed and the impugned DDR and order quashed [Paras 1-9]​​.

Power of High Courts – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Compounding of Offences – High Court possesses wide powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs or complaints in cases having a predominantly civil nature or involving matrimonial and family disputes where parties have resolved their issues. Even in non-compoundable offences, compounding can be allowed during appeal or after conviction [Para 6]​​.

Decision: Petition allowed. DDR dated 24.10.2007 and the order dated 21.01.2010 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender, along with all subsequent proceedings, are quashed​​.

Public Employment – Denial of Revised Pay Scales – Assured Career Progression Scheme – Petitioners, appointed/promoted as Deputy Project Officers, were denied revised pay scales and benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme due to the non-inclusion of the post in the Corporation’s bye-laws – Held, denial of revised pay scales and benefits arbitrary and discriminatory – Corporation’s failure to amend bye-laws in a timely manner cannot penalize employees – Writ Petition allowed – Directed grant of revised pay scales with interest and Assured Career Progression benefits [Paras 1-16].

Model Employer – Duty of the State – State criticized for callousness in treating employees – Emphasized that State must act as a model employer, ensuring a humane approach towards employees to maintain motivation and productivity – State’s impersonal attitude deemed unacceptable – Court deprecated inefficiency and bureaucratic hurdles causing unjust delay in employee benefits [Para 1].

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Directed that petitioners be given revised pay scales from the date these were granted to other employees – Benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme also granted – Interest @ 10% per annum awarded on arrears of pay from the date payable till actual payment – Arrears to be calculated and paid within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment [Para 16].

Provident Fund Dues – Priority Over Other Debts – Section 11 of EPF Act, 1952 – Claim of Central Excise Department – Court held that dues under EPF Act have precedence over central excise dues – Provident Fund dues are deemed first charge on assets of the establishment, overriding earlier claims by central excise if not satisfied by the time EPF claim is made – Attachment of salary of bank manager who credited amount to central excise instead of EPF set aside – Bank not liable due to lack of mala fides [Paras 21-24].

Attachment of Salary – Bank's Compliance with Legal Notices – Bank froze account as per garnishee notice from central excise – Compliance with subsequent EPF notice conflicted due to prior freeze – Legal opinion obtained – Salary attachment of Chief Manager quashed due to bona fide action without malice – No liability attributable to the bank or its officers for prioritizing central excise dues over EPF dues based on timing and notices received [Paras 24-26].

Judicial Review – Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court’s intervention under Article 227 – Order of EPF Recovery Officer attaching bank manager's salary quashed – Bank acted within reasonable constraints under conflicting legal notices – Court emphasized judicial review to ensure procedural fairness and prevent undue hardship to bank officials acting in good faith [Paras 54-56].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders directing attachment of Chief Manager's salary quashed – Direction for central excise to refund amount to EPF Commissioner – Petitioners directed to comply with revised payment obligations – No costs ordered [Paras 55-59].

Seniority List – Merit-Based Determination – Unjust and Arbitrary Actions – Petitioners contested the seniority list finalized on 05.07.2016, which ranked them junior to private respondents solely due to delayed appointment letters, despite higher merit positions – Held, as per Division Bench judgment in Prem Singh's case, petitioners could not be treated as junior due to administrative delays – The action of the Corporation in treating petitioners as juniors violated Articles 14 and 16 – Seniority list quashed and direction issued for deemed date of appointment based on merit list [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Review – Seniority in Service – Principles of Fairness – Petitioners secured higher merit positions in a common selection process and were eligible in terms of qualifications and experience – Corporation's failure to issue appointment letters timely led to unjust seniority ranking – Court emphasized that administrative lapses should not prejudice meritorious candidates – Directions issued to revise seniority list to reflect merit-based rankings [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Seniority list dated 05.07.2016 quashed – Petitioners granted deemed date of appointment as Junior Engineers (Electrical) from the date the first Junior Engineer was appointed from the same selection process – Corporation directed to issue fresh seniority list for Assistant Engineers (Electrical) within six weeks [Paras 17-18].

Land Ceiling – Reopening of Surplus Area Cases – Delay and Jurisdiction – Petitioners challenged the Financial Commissioner’s orders remanding surplus area cases to the Collector for a fresh decision after 16 and 24 years – Held, the power under Section 18(6) of the 1972 Act, although without a limitation period, must be exercised within a reasonable time – The Financial Commissioner did not justify the delay or consider the consequences of reopening old cases – Petitioners’ land holdings within permissible limits, and orders setting aside the Assistant Collector’s decision allowing eviction were unjustified [Paras 1-33].

Jurisdiction – Exercise of Revisional Powers – Lapse of Time – Supreme Court and High Court precedents require that extraordinary powers under Section 18(6) be exercised with reasons and within a reasonable timeframe – In the absence of fraud or suppression, the reopening of long-settled cases was unwarranted – Financial Commissioner’s order found to be without jurisdiction and set aside [Paras 17-23, 29-31].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Orders dated 12.09.1997 and 10.03.1999 passed by the Financial Commissioner set aside – Petitioners’ land holdings declared within permissible limits and eviction orders reinstated [Paras 34-36].