Constitutional Law - Regularization of Non-Teaching Staff - Appeal against order for regularization and pay difference - Non-teaching staff denied regularization while teaching staff benefitted - Held, denial arbitrary and discriminatory - Regularization upheld based on parity and Article 14 of the Constitution - Government's decision arbitrary, not sustainable. [Paras 15-16]

Regularization Policy - Applicability to Non-Teaching Staff - Analysis - Proposal for regularizing non-teaching staff initially accepted - Later denied citing lack of funds - Non-teaching staff's demand found genuine - Finance Department's rejection on financial grounds dismissed as untenable - Regularization parity required between teaching and non-teaching staff. [Paras 10, 13]

Delay in Filing Appeal - Application for condoning 274-day delay in filing appeal accepted - Delay attributed to procedural steps and internal decisions - Sufficient cause shown for condonation. [Paras 1-4]

Decision - Regularization and Pay Difference Entitlement Upheld - Appeals dismissed - Regularization of non-teaching staff and pay difference for 38 months upheld - Decision of writ court affirmed - All pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. [Paras 15-16]

Personal Security - Withdrawal of Security Cover – Appeal – Decorated police officer's security cover withdrawn by state – Court finds no vested right to personal security – Individual must demonstrate real and genuine threat, not mere apprehension – State’s assessment of threat perception upheld in absence of reliable contrary evidence – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Security Cover Assessment – Analysis – Held – Real and not merely perceived threat necessary for personal security cover – Competent authority’s satisfaction on threat abatement pivotal – Limited public resources cannot be used to display eminence or bolster ego – Court cannot substitute its judgment for state’s threat assessment. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Court upholds withdrawal of security cover – No error in Single Judge’s order – Recognizes past exemplary services but finds no current threat warranting security at state expense – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 12-14]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Legally Enforceable Liability – Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Cheques issued for work not executed – Cheque not against legally enforceable debt – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-16]

Burden of Proof – Analysis – Burden on appellant-complainant to establish that work was performed against the order for which the cheque was issued – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 rebutted by respondent-accused – Evidence showed cheques issued for same work due to incomplete execution after first work order – Second cheque issued after assurance to complete work – Acquittal upheld. [Paras 11, 14]

Judicial Approach – Interference in Acquittal – Scope of High Court's interference in acquittal limited – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Interference warranted only for substantial and compelling reasons – No perverse findings or mis-appreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Acquittal upheld. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No evidence of legally enforceable debt – Trial Court's judgment affirmed – Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. [Paras 15-16]

Judicial Service - Eligibility Criteria – Petition seeking relaxation of Rule 11(1)(bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007 – Petitioner working as Assistant District Attorney, unable to fulfill requirement of independent engagement and conducting of cases – Held, Rule requires practical court experience and cannot be relaxed – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Requirements for Judicial Appointments – Analysis – Rule 11(1)(bb) mandates independent engagement and conduct of cases for reserved category candidates – Petitioner, due to his role as Assistant District Attorney, lacks requisite independent practice – Judicial appointments require practical experience, intelligence, and problem-solving skills developed through court appearances. [Paras 8-12]

Principle of Non-Relaxation – Rules intended to ensure mature and trained judicial minds – Relaxation cannot undermine the rule’s purpose – No relaxation granted if it frustrates the objective of the rules – Petitioner's request for relaxation denied as it contravenes the rule’s intent. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Requirement for independent engagement and conducting of cases upheld – Relaxation not permissible as it would defeat the rule’s purpose – Petition dismissed due to lack of merit. [Paras 12-13]

Service Law - Effect of Censure on Promotion – Petition under Article 226 seeking promotion and restoration of seniority – Petitioner’s promotion delayed due to punishment of censure – Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) promoted juniors – Held, censure not a valid ground to deny promotion unless prescribed by service rules – Government of India’s clarification supports promotion despite censure – Petition allowed, direction to promote petitioner from date juniors were promoted and restore seniority. [Paras 1-12]

Clarification on Censure and Promotion – Analysis – Government of India’s clarification indicates censure does not preclude promotion if no other adverse material exists – DPC’s denial based solely on censure invalid – Promotion must reflect seniority-cum-merit criteria, censure alone insufficient to deny promotion. [Paras 7-8]

Judicial Principles – Limited scope for denying promotion based on minor penalties like censure – Promotion must be denied based on comprehensive review of adverse records, not censure alone – Clarifications reaffirming promotion eligibility notwithstanding censure applied retrospectively. [Paras 7-8]

Delay and Laches – Objections on delay and laches by respondents rejected – Petitioner’s rights not diminished by administrative delays or errors – Seniority correction vital to prevent future prejudice in promotional prospects. [Paras 10]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Petitioner to be promoted from date juniors were promoted – Consequent seniority to be restored – Respondents directed to complete exercise within three months – Petition disposed of with directions. [Paras 12-14]

. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340 - Proceedings under - Maintenance proceedings - Duty to disclose financial status - Petitioner deliberately withholding information about employment and income - False evidence given in court - Inquiry ordered under Section 191 IPC - Petition dismissed. (Para 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 191 and 193 - False evidence - Wife intentionally withholding information about employment and income during maintenance proceedings - Found to have given false evidence - Inquiry ordered under Section 191 IPC - Conviction likely - Actions deliberate and conscious - Petition dismissed. (Para 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

3. Maintenance proceedings - Duty to disclose financial status - Petitioner failing to disclose employment and income - Withholding information deliberately to obtain maintenance - Practice of making false assertions in court discouraged - Dignity and sanctity of the court undermined - Petition dismissed. (Para 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

4. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance proceedings - Petitioner claiming no source of income or property - Evidence reveals employment with a monthly salary - Failure to disclose employment and income - False information provided to the court - Inquiry ordered under Section 191 IPC - Petition dismissed. (Para 10, 11, 12)

Criminal Law – Perjury – Sections 191, 193 IPC – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Concealment of employment and income – Wife joined as Assistant Professor before filing application – Held: Duty to disclose financial status to court – Concealment intentional and deliberate to obtain maintenance – High probability of conviction – Inquiry ordered under Sections 191, 193 IPC upheld – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Duty of Disclosure – Maintenance Application – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Applicant must disclose actual financial status – Failure to inform court about employment during proceedings – Interim maintenance granted based on false information – Explanation for non-disclosure found fallacious – Possibility of conviction high due to deliberate concealment. [Paras 9-11]

Judicial Precedent – Administration of Justice – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Proceedings initiated for administration of justice – Importance of truthful disclosure in judicial process – False assertions undermine court's dignity and sanctity – Encouraging honesty in matrimonial litigation. [Paras 8, 12]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Family Court’s order directing inquiry under Sections 191, 193 IPC upheld – Petitioner's explanation for non-disclosure rejected – Importance of honest disclosure emphasized – Petition dismissed with appreciation for counsel's arguments. [Paras 13-14]

Industrial Disputes - Retrenchment Permission – Writ Petition – Company sought permission to retrench 37 workers due to reduced demand during COVID-19 – Labour Commissioner failed to communicate decision within 60 days – Deemed permission granted under Section 25-N(4) – Court finds no infirmity in the deemed permission – Petition dismissed, legality of grounds for retrenchment not examined. [Paras 1-50]

Deemed Permission Provision – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court precedents affirm that if decision on retrenchment application not communicated within statutory period, permission is deemed granted – Deeming provisions unqualified, no exception for pending enquiry – Ensures constitutional validity of restrictions on retrenchment. [Paras 39-45]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court upholds deemed permission for retrenchment due to non-communication within 60 days – Order dated 01.03.2021 stands – Petition dismissed, workers' remedy lies in raising industrial dispute for adjudication of merits. [Paras 45-48]

Appeal - Limitation – Letters Patent Appeal filed after 1496 days against the order of the writ court – Delay in filing not justified – Second appeal filed on the same judgment after the first appeal was dismissed due to non-removal of objections within the prescribed period – Filing a second appeal on the same cause of action is not permissible – LPA dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Condonation of Delay – Application for condonation of delay – Insufficient explanation for delay of over 3 years and 5 months in filing the appeal – Failure to remove objections within the prescribed period of 40 days – No bona fide effort shown by the applicant – Negligent conduct disqualifies for indulgence – Application dismissed. [Paras 3-6, 9]

Rules of Court – Adherence to procedural rules – Rule 9, Chapter 1, Part-A, Volume V of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders mandates removal of objections within 40 days – Failure to comply leads to dismissal of the appeal – Strict compliance required to avoid misuse and delay in litigation. [Para 4]

Merits of the Case – Challenge to the pay scale fixed at the time of initial appointment after 4 years of retirement – Writ petition filed with inordinate delay – Writ court dismissed the petition on merits due to lack of grounds – Appeal lacks merit both on procedural and substantive grounds. [Paras 8-10]

Decision – Dismissal of LPA – Both application for condonation of delay and main appeal dismissed – No interference with the impugned judgment of the writ court. [Para 10]