Service Regularization – Delay in Decision on Representations – State Obliged to Act Expeditiously - Petitioners sought regularization of services and parity with employees already regularized under the same requisition – Grievance arose due to the State’s failure to decide representations for months – Held: A welfare State is expected to act promptly in addressing employee grievances to prevent avoidable litigation and court congestion [Paras 5-7].

Doctrine of Equality – Mandamus Issued – Parity with Similarly Situated Employees Directed - Petitioners claimed entitlement to benefits granted to other employees under the same recruitment process, such as in the cases of Jitender Kumar and Ashok Kumar – Court observed that delayed or selective regularization contradicts principles of equality and justice – Directed respondents to decide representations within six weeks [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations within six weeks, and communicate the outcome to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of [Para 10].
 

Maintainability of Suit – Religious Office Dispute – Section 9 of CPC – Suit Not Barred – Claim to Office of Uttaradhikari – Held: A suit to establish a right to a religious office is of a civil nature and is not barred by Section 9 of CPC, even if it involves incidental questions of religious rites and customs. Such disputes are within the jurisdiction of civil courts under Explanation I to Section 9 of CPC – [Paras 40-44].

Grant of Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Dispute Regarding Office of Uttaradhikari – Rejected – No Prima Facie Evidence of Appointment – Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie anointment as Uttaradhikari, and the balance of convenience was not in his favor. Trial Court's refusal to grant injunction justified – [Paras 45-57].

Res Judicata – Fresh Cause of Action – I.A. No. 1/2023 – Interim Injunction Sought on New Grounds – Interim injunction application based on alleged fresh cause of action (WhatsApp messages regarding appointment of a new Uttaradhikari) not barred by res judicata – However, interim relief denied on merits as no compelling evidence was presented – [Paras 59-61].

Clubbing of Suits – Multiple Proceedings Concerning the Same Subject Matter – Avoiding Conflicting Judgments – Directions Issued – In view of multiple pending suits concerning the same subject matter across different courts, all cases were ordered to be clubbed and tried together to avoid conflicting decisions and facilitate efficient adjudication – [Paras 63-64].

Scope of Civil Courts – Religious Office – Explanation I to Section 9 CPC – Civil courts can decide suits involving rights to a religious office, even if questions of religious rites or ceremonies arise incidentally. Such disputes are cognizable unless expressly barred by law – [Paras 37-44].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed: Both appeals (MFA No. 6998/2018 and MFA No. 1280/2024) were dismissed on the grounds that:

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction.
Balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not in favor of the plaintiff.
The claim of res judicata in relation to the second application was unjustified but ultimately did not impact the outcome.
Clubbing of Suits: All related suits involving the rights and claims to the office of Uttaradhikari were directed to be transferred to the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-42), Bengaluru, to be tried and disposed of together.

Stay on New Suits: Any new or other suits involving the same subject matter were directed not to proceed until the current matters were finally decided.

Expedited Disposal: Directions were issued to the trial court to expedite the trial of the consolidated suits, with all parties directed to cooperate for the early conclusion of proceedings.
 

Bail in NDPS Cases – Stringent Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Denied - Petitioner sought bail for possession of commercial quantity (28 injections of Buprenorphine) – Court held that the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act were not satisfied as the petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for innocence or assurance against re-offending – Mere arguments of false implication or procedural lapses insufficient [Paras 10-15].

Commercial Quantity – High Threshold for Bail – Interpretation of Section 37 - The Court emphasized that offenses involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act require strict compliance with Section 37 – Found no prima facie evidence indicating that the petitioner was not guilty, given the quantity involved and procedural adherence by investigating agencies [Paras 16-20].

Legislative Intent – Curbing Drug Menace – Bail Criteria Reinforced - Affirming the legislative intent behind Section 37, the Court held that bail in such cases demands rigorous judicial scrutiny to align with the broader objective of deterring drug-related offenses [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Petition dismissed. Pending applications also disposed of. Observations limited to bail adjudication without prejudice to trial merits [Paras 26-27].
 

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Classification as Class-III Employee Affirmed - Petitioner contended that he was a Class-IV employee entitled to retire at 60 years instead of 58 years – Court upheld the respondents’ classification, noting that the petitioner worked as a Diesel Mechanic in the pay scale reserved for Class-III employees, making the retirement age of 58 years applicable [Paras 5-8].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Filed After 8 Years – Claim Barred - Petitioner retired in 2008 but filed the writ petition in 2016, after an unexplained delay of eight years – Court held the petition barred by delay and laches, referencing authoritative precedents rejecting belated claims under equitable jurisdiction [Paras 10-13].

Equitable Relief – Rights Must Be Asserted Promptly – Judicial Discretion Applied - Even though there was no prescribed limitation, the Court emphasized the need for vigilance in asserting rights under Article 226 – Held: Relief cannot be granted to a petitioner who has slept over his rights [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
 

Matrimonial Disputes – Power to Quash FIR – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Non-Compoundable Offences – Amicable Settlement – FIR Quashed – In matrimonial disputes and cases relating to family matters, where the dispute is personal or private in nature, and the parties have resolved their issues amicably, the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even if some of the alleged offences are non-compoundable – Held: The continuation of criminal proceedings after a compromise would be an abuse of the process of law, and there would be no purpose served in continuing such proceedings – [Paras 9-11].

Compromise Between Parties – Legal Recognition – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Settlement Verified – The compromise between the parties was verified by the Registrar Judicial of the Court, and both parties confirmed its execution – Held: Once a genuine compromise is established, and the likelihood of conviction is remote, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to injustice – [Paras 3-4, 10-11].

High Court’s Inherent Powers – Matrimonial Offences – Quashing Criminal Proceedings – The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC extends to quashing criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes when it is evident that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the settlement and cause unnecessary hardship to the parties – [Para 9].

Judicial Precedent – Matrimonial Offences – Non-Compoundable Nature – The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases arising from family disputes, even non-compoundable offences may be quashed in the interest of justice where a genuine settlement has been reached – Reliance placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 – [Para 9].

Decision: FIR Quashed: FIR No. 19/2023 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Udhampur, for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, were quashed in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties.

Compromise Accepted: The compromise deed executed on 12/09/2024 was verified, and its contents were confirmed by both parties.

Abuse of Process Prevented: It was held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a waste of judicial resources.

Judicial Precedents Followed: The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that matrimonial disputes can be resolved through compromise, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
 

Constitutional Law – Ultra Vires Declaration – Section 10-A of Telangana Act Invalidated – Petitioners, unemployed youth, contended that Section 10-A, allowing regularization of contract employees, contravened Articles 14, 16, and 309 of the Constitution, and undermined statutory recruitment rules – Court held: Section 10-A is ultra vires as it conflicts with existing Education Service Rules and exceeds the scope of Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act – Provision quashed [Paras 50-54].

Employment – Regularization Without Transparency – Contrary to Public Policy – Regularization under Section 10-A applied to contract employees appointed without adherence to statutory procedures – Held: Public employment must adhere to principles of equality and fairness; backdoor entries into public service through opaque methods cannot be regularized retrospectively [Paras 35-39, 57].

Doctrine of Res Judicata – Not Applicable to Petitioners – Respondents’ argument that the writ petitions were barred by res judicata due to prior PIL proceedings was rejected – Court noted the earlier PIL was dismissed on technical grounds without addressing merits, and petitioners were not parties to those proceedings [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Section 101 – Limited to Modifications Without Substantive Changes – The Court emphasized that Section 101 of the Reorganisation Act permits adaptations or amendments to existing laws but does not allow for substantive legislative changes, such as the introduction of Section 10-A, which contradicts pre-existing statutory recruitment rules [Paras 42-49].

Judicial Restraint – Existing Regularized Employees Retained – While declaring Section 10-A unconstitutional, the Court declined to disturb the regularized status of employees due to their long tenure, balancing equity and public interest – Future recruitments directed to follow statutory procedures [Paras 58-60].

Decision: The Court declared Section 10-A of the Telangana Act, 1994, ultra vires and set it aside. However, it allowed the already regularized employees to continue in service, directing the State to ensure future appointments comply with statutory provisions.
 

Execution of Promissory Notes – Presumption of Consideration – Section 118(a), Negotiable Instruments Act – Execution and signatures on the promissory notes admitted by the defendants – Trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's claim based on minor discrepancies – Held: Execution of the promissory notes and consideration established; burden shifted to the defendants to rebut the presumption of consideration [Paras 27-28, 42].

Equitable Mortgage – Validity of Deposit of Title Deeds – Section 58(f), Transfer of Property Act – Deposit of title deeds with intent to create a security upheld – Defendants’ admissions during cross-examination supported the plaintiff’s claim – Equitable mortgage validly created [Paras 37-38].

Limitation Period – Error in Application of Law – Trial court wrongly applied a three-year limitation period for promissory notes, ignoring the equitable mortgage’s 12-year period under the Limitation Act – Judgment set aside [Para 14].

Interest Rate – Usurious Nature – Adjusted by Court – Interest rate of 24% per annum compounded annually found excessive – Reduced to 24% simple interest until the suit filing, followed by 12% simple interest until the judgment and 6% thereafter until realization [Paras 50-51].

Decision:

Appeal allowed in part. Trial court’s judgment dismissing the suit set aside. Plaintiff awarded:

Principal Amount: ₹2,00,000/-

Interest:

24% simple interest per annum from the transaction date to suit filing.

12% simple interest per annum from the suit filing date to the trial court judgment.

6% simple interest per annum from the judgment date until realization.

Part payments by defendants to be deducted from the decretal amount.

Defendants granted three months for redemption.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Uniform Market Value – Land acquired for the construction of a railway line, utilized for a single public purpose – Reference Court enhanced compensation uniformly at ₹25,000 per kanal, irrespective of land classification – Held: Enhancement justified as classification had no relevance due to uniform use of land – Based on the principle in Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 447, where no development deductions were permitted for land acquired for public purposes [Paras 8-9].

Market Value – Evidence and Comparable Sale Instances – Court relied on sale deeds of similar land located in the vicinity to determine fair compensation – Witness testimonies established the proximity of the acquired land to schools, factories, and residential areas, warranting higher compensation – Held: Enhanced compensation reflects the true market value of the acquired land [Paras 11-12].

Precedent – Similar Case Outcome – Binding Nature – Co-ordinate Bench judgment in General Manager, Northern Railway v. Rajneesh Kumar & Others (RFA No. 378 of 2012) affirmed the enhancement of compensation in identical circumstances for land acquired for the Nangal–Talwara Railway Line – Held: Consistency in judicial decisions mandates no interference with the Reference Court’s award [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation of ₹25,000 per kanal – Appeal by Northern Railway dismissed as devoid of merit, with no error found in the award [Paras 10, 14].
 

Service Law - Employment Eligibility – Acquittal and Criminal Record – Rejection of Candidature Overturned - Petitioner’s application for Constable post was rejected citing pending criminal proceedings under Sections 323 and 143 IPC – Petitioner was acquitted before document verification, and the Court held that mere involvement in criminal proceedings without a conviction does not render a candidate unsuitable – Denial of employment for non-heinous charges was unjustified [Paras 1-10, 28-30].

Concealment of Criminal Record – No Evidence of Misrepresentation Found - The FIR against the petitioner was registered after the application date, and the petitioner disclosed it during document verification – Court found no willful concealment or misrepresentation – Misconduct allegation dismissed as unfounded [Paras 12-14].

Nature of Acquittal – Honorability Irrelevant in Employment Decisions - Respondents argued that the petitioner’s acquittal was not “honorable” – Court clarified that the criminal jurisprudence does not differentiate between “honorable” and other types of acquittals – All acquittals restore the presumption of innocence unless set aside in appeal [Paras 18-21].

Principle of Reintegration – Right to Employment for Acquitted Individuals - Rejection of candidacy undermines the reintegration of individuals acquitted of charges into society – Employment denial based on acquitted charges stigmatizes individuals and contravenes constitutional values [Para 22].

Decision: Petition allowed. Rejection order dated 13/12/2021 set aside. Respondents directed to issue the petitioner’s appointment letter within 30 days of receiving a copy of this judgment. Pending applications disposed of [Para 30].