Service Law – Pension Scheme – Applicability of Old Pension Scheme – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioners appointed against posts advertised before 28.10.2005 challenged the withdrawal of benefits of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) extended via Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 – Court held that once the State Government extended one-time option to its employees covered under NPS for reverting to OPS based on advertisement dates, the same must apply to University employees as well since the University implemented NPS under Government directives – Arbitrary withdrawal of benefit without justification declared unsustainable – Impugned memo dated 24.07.2023 set aside – Respondents directed to restore OPS benefits to eligible petitioners [Paras 6-10].

Estoppel – Conduct of Petitioners – Challenge to NPS After Long Delay – Rejected – Petitioners had voluntarily submitted PRAN forms and accepted deductions under NPS without protest since 2012 – Court held they cannot claim OPS benefits on the basis of initial GPF allotments alone – The challenge to Executive Council resolution adopting NPS in 2007 also rejected as being belated and untenable [Paras 7-7.2].

Withdrawal of Benefits – Action Arbitrary – Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 granting OPS benefit was forwarded to Universities but withdrawn abruptly without assigning any valid reason – Court censured the State for whimsical withdrawal and held such action violative of rule of law – Memo dated 24.07.2023 declared illegal [Paras 8-8.4].

University Pension Clause – Binding Nature – Clause 15.2.1(iii) of Kurukshetra University NPS mandates that any change in pensionary benefits made applicable to Government employees shall extend to University employees – University’s failure to act on this clause censured – Government also criticized for double standards in denying OPS benefit while having compelled Universities to adopt NPS earlier [Paras 9-9.1].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Memo dated 24.07.2023 withdrawn – Respondents directed to extend OPS benefits under OM dated 08.05.2023 to petitioners appointed against posts advertised prior to 28.10.2005 – NPS accounts to be closed – Costs of ₹5,00,000 imposed jointly on Government and University – Compliance within eight weeks [Para 10].

Service Law - Seniority – Change of Local Body – Rules of 2018 Applicable – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner’s seniority was initially reckoned from 2003, but later revised to 2012 upon absorption into a different local body – Held: Under Rule 17(3) of the 2018 Rules, teachers absorbed in another local body are to be assigned seniority from date of joining in the new local body – Downward revision of seniority list was legally valid and consistent with the rules – Promotion order based on incorrect seniority cannot be enforced [Paras 10–27].

Per Incuriam – Coordinate Bench Decision in W.P. No. 1450/2024 Not Binding – Earlier judgment relied on pre-2018 rules and failed to consider Rule 17(3) and Rule 2(l) of the 2018 Rules – Held: A judgment that overlooks binding statutory provisions is per incuriam – This Court is not bound to follow such precedent – Statutory rules override administrative circulars or executive guidelines [Paras 12, 15, 24].

Promotion – Distinction Between Seniority and Service Benefits – Partial Recognition of Service – Held: While seniority for promotion must be reckoned from 2012 due to change in local body, petitioner’s prior service from 2003 to 2012 shall be counted for all other purposes such as pay fixation, increments, retirement benefits, and time-bound upgradation – Judgment limited in scope to inter-se seniority and promotions [Para 28].

Doctrine of Precedent – Per Incuriam Effect – Binding Nature Limited – Held: A judgment rendered without consideration of a relevant statutory provision loses its value as precedent – Though the operative part of a per incuriam judgment remains binding inter partes, it does not bind other courts – Rule reaffirmed by Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay and other cases [Paras 17–24].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Seniority Fixed from 2012 Date of Absorption – Held: Petitioner cannot claim seniority from 2003 due to clear mandate of Rule 17(3) of the 2018 Rules and unchallenged clause in absorption order – Petition dismissed with observation that prior service shall count for all benefits except promotion-related seniority [Paras 26–29].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction Suit – Claim of Possession as Gair Mourusi Tenant – Dismissed – Plaintiff-Appellants claimed tenancy rights based on long possession of 70 years but failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove tenancy or possession – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs were incorrect and without foundation – Counterclaim of defendants decreed holding them owners in possession – Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 1-10].

Tenancy Rights – Burden of Proof – Mere oral assertions without documentary evidence not sufficient – Plaintiffs failed to produce any tenancy records, rent receipts, or corroborative evidence showing possession – Admission by plaintiff in cross-examination that they were neither owners nor tenants fatal to their claim – Held: Courts below rightly dismissed the suit for injunction [Paras 9-10].

Revenue Entries – Presumption – Revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs declared incorrect – Presumption attached to revenue entries rebuttable when shown to be incorrect or made without factual basis – Defendants proved possession with construction of boundary walls and gate – Courts directed correction of revenue records in favour of defendants [Paras 6, 9].

Counterclaim – Decreed in Favour of Defendants – Plaintiffs failed to contest the counterclaim either factually or legally during appeal – Defendants successfully established ownership and possession – Courts restrained plaintiffs from interfering in possession of defendants [Paras 6, 9].

Regular Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Findings based on facts and evidence – No legal infirmity in judgments of courts below – Held: No question of law arises requiring interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No merit found in the claim of plaintiffs – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Bail Cancellation – Section 528 of BNSS - Cancellation of Bail Due to Non-Appearance – Order Set Aside – Petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court on 08.07.2024 due to noting the wrong date – Trial Court cancelled bail, forfeited bail/surety bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants – Held: Non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional – The explanation provided is justified – Extreme action of bail cancellation unjustified in absence of wilful default – Order cancelling bail quashed [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Procedure – Fairness and Liberty – Article 21 of Constitution – While maintaining law and order is essential, any curtailment of personal liberty must align with fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution – The issuance of non-bailable warrants is solely to secure presence, not punitive in nature – Once the accused comes forward voluntarily and undertakes to appear, liberty must be balanced with procedural fairness [Para 8].

Non-Bailable Warrants – Objective and Remedy – The purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants is to ensure the appearance of the accused – Where the accused voluntarily approaches the Court and offers a reasonable explanation with an undertaking to appear in future, the extreme remedy of warrant issuance and bail cancellation is unwarranted – Cancellation order set aside with direction to surrender within two weeks [Paras 9-10].

Relief – Bail Restored with Costs – Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 08.07.2024 cancelling bail, forfeiting bonds, and issuing warrants quashed – Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and furnish fresh bail/surety bonds – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed to be deposited with PGIMER Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh – Bail to be granted only after submission of cost receipt [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Interim protection to continue subject to surrender within two weeks – Failure to surrender will result in vacation of protection [Paras 11-13].

Suo Moto Appeal – Tenancy Law – Applicability of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 vs. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Eviction Decree Granted – The dispute centered around whether the respondent was a premises tenant under the 1997 Act or a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act – The key issue was whether AC charges, being an essential component for enjoyment of the premises, formed part of the “rent” to determine if the tenancy exceeded the Rs. 10,000/- ceiling under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – Held: AC charges are an integral part of rent based on undertakings before the Supreme Court, the consistent course of conduct, and the essential nature of AC to the tenancy – Consequently, the tenancy is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, not the 1997 Act – Trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit reversed – Decree of eviction granted – Respondent’s cross-objection on technical grounds also dismissed [Paras 1-86].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar on Second Suit – Not Applicable – The court held that the second eviction suit was not barred despite pendency and withdrawal of the earlier suit – The cause of action in the second suit was based on the rent exceeding the ceiling limit of the 1997 Act, triggering applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, which was distinct from the earlier suit based on the 1956 Tenancy Act – Hence, Order II Rule 2 and res judicata did not apply [Paras 27-39].

Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC – Company Representation – No Bar – The objection that the suit was not maintainable for lack of proper authorization of the person signing the plaint was rejected – The court held that any director able to depose to the facts could sign and verify pleadings – The absence of an authorization resolution was a curable defect that was not raised before the trial court and could not be entertained at the appellate stage [Paras 40-47].

Definition of Rent – Inclusion of AC Charges – Rent Determination under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – The court held that AC charges, being mandatory for the use and enjoyment of the tenanted premises and arising from a binding undertaking before the Supreme Court, were an essential part of rent – Since AC was centrally provided and inseparable from the premises' use, the charges were not ancillary but integral – As a result, the total rent exceeded Rs. 10,000/- per month, taking the tenancy outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 [Paras 48-79].

Applicability of Transfer of Property Act – Eviction Valid – Once the tenancy was held to be outside the protection of the 1997 Act, it was governed by the Transfer of Property Act – The termination notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was valid – Plaintiff entitled to eviction on this basis [Paras 78-80].

Decision – Appeals F.A. 156 of 2022 and F.A.T. 66 of 2017 allowed – Impugned judgment and decrees dated 06.01.2017 set aside – Plaintiff’s eviction suit decreed – Defendant’s declaratory suit dismissed – Cross-objection COT 33 of 2018 dismissed – No order as to costs – Separate decrees directed to be drawn accordingly – Limited assurance granted by the appellant to not execute eviction for one month – No formal stay granted [Paras 80-86].

Criminal Law – Sections 363, 366, 376, 511, and 354 of the IPC - Kidnapping and Attempt to Rape – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for forcibly abducting a girl, detaining her for 20 days, and attempting to rape her – The victim’s consistent testimony under Section 164 CrPC and during trial affirmed the appellant’s acts of undressing and attempting intercourse – The High Court held that such acts constituted a clear attempt to commit rape – Conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376/511, and 354 IPC confirmed [Paras 6–9, 13–14, 28–29].

Testimony of Victim – Consistent and Unshaken – Credible Evidence of Attempted Sexual Assault – Victim (PW-2) reiterated in court that she was forcibly taken and sexually assaulted without penetration – Her account remained consistent with her statement before the Magistrate – Defence failed to discredit her evidence – Held: Her testimony, being natural and credible, forms the basis for conviction [Paras 9, 13–14, 28].

FIR Delay – Justified and Not Fatal – Delay Reasonably Explained – FIR was lodged after 21 days of incident – Delay explained due to efforts to search the victim and absence of male family members – Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that delay in FIR is not unusual in sexual offences due to social stigma – Delay does not impair prosecution case [Paras 3, 16].

Attempt to Rape – Legal Ingredients – Acts Towards Intercourse Sufficient – The appellant undressed the victim and tried to force intercourse, which was prevented by her resistance – The Court reiterated that absence of penetration does not negate offence under Section 376/511 IPC – Attempt to rape proved by conduct and intent of appellant [Paras 14, 18–21].

Consent – Not Established – Defence of Affair Rejected – Appellant’s defence of consensual relationship based on alleged letters was denied by the victim – No plea of consent was taken under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Consent was neither pleaded nor proved – Victim’s testimony confirmed absence of consent [Paras 3, 24, 28].

Recovery of Victim – From Accused’s Custody – Strengthens Prosecution Case – Victim was recovered from appellant’s custody on the date of FIR registration – Recovery corroborated by PW-5 and recovery memo – Held: Recovery supports prosecution’s claim of illegal detention and sexual assault attempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Decision – No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – The Court found the prosecution evidence trustworthy and legally sufficient – Trial court rightly appreciated the facts and law – No ground for interference – Appeal dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit [Paras 28–29].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance under Section 24 HMA – Award of Interim Maintenance to Wife and Child – Decree Affirmed – The appellant challenged the Family Court’s order awarding pendente lite maintenance of ₹10,000/month to the wife and ₹15,000/month to the minor child – Appellant contended concealment of income and false claims of unemployment by respondent wife – Held: Mere qualifications or prior income do not negate entitlement to maintenance – No material placed before Family Court to prove respondent’s current employment – Order granting maintenance upheld [Paras 1–3, 8–10, 14–15].

Earning Capacity vs Actual Earnings – Wife’s Qualifications Not a Ground to Deny Maintenance – The Court observed that capability to earn and actual earning are distinct – A wife who has left her job for child care responsibilities cannot be denied maintenance on the sole ground of qualification – Maintenance rightly granted based on financial disparity and cost of living – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Personal Liabilities – Loans Not Deductible While Determining Maintenance – Appellant’s claim of heavy personal liabilities and loans was rejected – Held: Personal or investment-related loans are taken for self-benefit and do not reduce obligation to maintain spouse and child – Family Court correctly applied legal principle and considered liabilities while determining maintenance [Paras 11–13].

Dependents of Appellant – Claim of Responsibility Toward Parents Rejected – The appellant claimed financial burden due to liability of maintaining his mother – Held: Mother can be considered dependent on father or daughter, both of whom earn separately – No case made to reduce maintenance on this ground [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court’s order awarding maintenance to wife and child found just, reasonable, and based on facts – No infirmity found in assessment of income or liabilities – Challenge to interim order on grounds of concealment or pending applications under Section 340 CrPC not maintainable in this appeal – Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 14–15].

Civil Writ - Removal of JJB Member – Validity of Removal – Applicability of Law – Writ Petition allowed – The petitioner, a senior advocate and lecturer, was appointed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 2007 Rules – After repeal of the 2000 Act, he was removed by order dated 22/25 September 2017 under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 but before the 2018 Rules came into force – Petitioner challenged the removal on grounds of procedural illegality, violation of natural justice and disproportionality – Held: Though the removal was not governed by the repealed 2000 Act and 2007 Rules, the action was taken by the competent authority under the 2015 Act – However, the charges were minor administrative lapses without any allegations of corruption, abuse of power or serious misconduct – The penalty of removal with stigma was held to be grossly disproportionate – Order of removal set aside – No reinstatement or financial relief sought by petitioner – Relief granted only to remove the stigma attached to the order of removal [Paras 1, 4-6, 17-24, 28-38].

Applicability of Law – Transition between Juvenile Justice Acts – Appointment under 2000 Act – Removal under 2015 Act – Held: 2000 Act and 2007 Rules repealed with effect from 15 January 2016 – Removal in 2017 rightly governed by 2015 Act – Procedure under 2000 Act no longer applicable – Validity of removal not affected merely because inquiry was not referred to the Selection Committee under 2007 Rules – State Government was competent authority under 2015 Act [Paras 17-24].

Natural Justice – Inquiry Process – Allegation of non-supply of witness statements and no opportunity of cross-examination – Held: Though statements of three persons were not furnished during the inquiry, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice – Inquiry process substantially complied with natural justice – No violation sufficient to invalidate the proceedings on this ground alone [Paras 25-27].

Misconduct – Nature of Charges – Allegations included preparation of private rubber stamp, allowing law students to visit Observation Home without prior permission, and sitting on Chairperson’s chair in absence – Held: Charges were trivial administrative lapses and temperamental issues – No allegation of corruption, harassment, or serious abuse of power – Findings did not justify removal [Paras 28-34].

Proportionality of Punishment – Penalty of Removal Held Grossly Disproportionate – On facts, minor counselling or warning would have sufficed – Extreme penalty of removal with stigma unwarranted – Petitioner being a senior citizen, practicing advocate, and lecturer suffered stigma and litigation for 7-8 years – Held: Removal order set aside solely to remove stigma – No back-wages or reinstatement sought – Petition allowed [Paras 35-39].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order dated 22/25 September 2017 removing the petitioner from the Juvenile Justice Board set aside – Relief granted only to the extent of removing stigma – No costs [Para 39].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Sections 498A, 406, 323, 34 IPC – Divorce Proceedings Pending – Allegations Found Baseless – Criminal proceeding initiated by wife alleged to be retaliatory to the matrimonial suit filed by husband – FIR contains vague and evasive allegations without specific details regarding acts of cruelty or physical harm – No material found during investigation to substantiate cruelty under Section 498A or hurt under Section 323 IPC – Further, Section 406 IPC was dropped by the investigating agency due to absence of evidence of stridhan misappropriation – Held: The criminal case amounts to an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed [Paras 1-17].

Section 498A IPC – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Explanation (a) and (b) – FIR and charge sheet do not disclose conduct amounting to cruelty likely to drive the complainant to suicide or cause grave injury – Nor is there any allegation of harassment for unlawful dowry demands – Admissions by the complainant in matrimonial proceedings further negate allegations of cruelty – No prima facie case made out under Section 498A IPC [Paras 8-12].

Section 323 IPC – Allegation of Hurt – Bald Allegations – The FIR and charge sheet lack specific details such as date, time, nature of hurt, or individual roles of accused – Held: Allegations are vague, general and do not constitute an offence under Section 323 IPC [Para 13].

Evidentiary Value of Admission – Statements Made in Matrimonial Suit – Complainant’s deposition in the divorce suit showed clear admissions that no cruelty or torture was inflicted – Also stated she had no memory of filing the criminal complaint – Held: Such unimpeached admissions are reliable and valid to consider at the quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC as being of sterling quality – Statements are binding unless rebutted [Paras 12, 15].

Exercise of Inherent Power – Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – The court held that continuation of the criminal case in absence of prima facie material would amount to misuse of judicial process – Criminal proceedings quashed to secure ends of justice – High Court can rely upon unimpeachable documents including admissions made in prior judicial proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 14, 16].

Decision – Criminal Revisional Application CRR 1382 of 2018 allowed – Entire criminal proceedings being GR Case No. 1495 of 2012 pending before ACJM, Barasat arising from Barasat P.S. Case No. 508 of 2012 dated 20.03.2012 under Sections 498A/406/323/34 IPC quashed – Held: Continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court – No order as to costs [Para 17].