Pension and Gratuity – Withholding of Retirement Benefits – Rule 43(b) and 43(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – Petitioner retired without any pending departmental or criminal proceedings – Withholding 10% of pension and gratuity deemed illegal in absence of such proceedings – Writ petition allowed directing respondents to pay withheld amounts [Paras 2-19].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Pending Proceedings – Rule 43(b) and 43(c) stipulate withholding only if proceedings are pending – Respondents failed to show any ongoing departmental proceedings – Court emphasizes strict adherence to procedural fairness in withholding pension and gratuity [Paras 13-16].

Decision:n Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to pay the petitioner the remaining 10% of pension and gratuity along with arrears forthwith.

Provident Fund Contributions – Liability of Amalgamated Entity –

Petitioner bank challenged the order imposing damages and interest for delayed remittance of Provident Fund contributions and transfer of past accumulations by the Board of Trustees (BOT) of the amalgamated bank – Contention that BOT is a separate entity and petitioner should not be held liable – High Court held that obligations of the amalgamated bank include liabilities of the BOT – Sections 17(1-A) and 27AA of the Scheme mandate employer responsibility for timely transfer of funds [Paras 1-21].

Constitutional Validity – Section 14B of EPF Act –

Petitioner argued Section 14B inconsistent with Section 17(1-A)(d)(iv) of EPF Act and Article 14 of the Constitution – Court found no inconsistency or arbitrariness – Upheld validity of Section 14B, emphasizing statutory obligations of employer for Provident Fund contributions – Reference to precedents indicating employer liability for BOT actions [Paras 22-25].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Court affirmed that petitioner bank is liable for damages and interest imposed by Provident Fund Authority – Section 14B held valid and consistent with statutory provisions and constitutional principles – No arbitrariness found in the authority’s order [Paras 26-28].

Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – Petitioners sought to punish respondents for disobeying orders of the Division Bench of the High Court – Respondents claimed good faith, misunderstanding the status of interim order – Court accepted unconditional apologies considering no further actions were taken post-execution petition – Contempt case closed with direction to respondents to halt further proceedings in E.P.12/2022 [Paras 1-8].

Execution of Compromise Decree – Lok Adalat Award – Compromise reached and award passed by Lok Adalat required execution of sale deed – Respondent filed execution petition post interim stay order, misunderstanding it was vacated – Court emphasized the duty to verify the status of interim orders before proceeding [Paras 2-4].

Apology and Undertaking – Respondent’s Conditional Compliance – Respondent tendered unconditional apology and submitted undertaking to cease further actions in execution proceedings till disposal of main writ petition – Court accepted apology but highlighted the importance of verifying court orders [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Contempt Case Closed – Held – Apologies accepted and directions given to halt proceedings in E.P.12/2022 – No costs awarded – Interlocutory applications, if any, to stand closed [Para 8].

Bail – Cancellation – NDPS Act – Application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail – Bail granted by the Special Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura – Grounds for cancellation included discrepancies in GD entries and lack of reasonable grounds to believe accused’s non-guilt – Printing errors in GD entries noted but considered non-material – Section 37 of NDPS Act discussed, emphasizing that mere filing of charge-sheet is not sufficient ground for bail – Bail order set aside – Respondent directed to surrender [Paras 1-13].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail limitations – Requirement for Public Prosecutor to oppose bail and court to be satisfied of non-guilt and no likelihood of reoffending – Emphasized that bail under NDPS Act is an exception, not the rule – Court not to conclude guilt or innocence at bail stage but focus on reasonable grounds [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Application allowed – Bail order by Special Judge set aside – Respondent to surrender, failing which arrest to be ensured – Bail bond cancelled – Court mandates adherence to stringent criteria for bail under NDPS Act [Paras 11-13].

Entertainment Duty – Definition and Scope – Petitioner organized APSARA award function, argued it did not fall under “entertainment” as per Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act – Court held the function included performances and thus fell within definition of “entertainment” [Paras 10-12].

Sponsorship as Payment for Admission – Reliance Communications sponsored the event, petitioner claimed it did not constitute “payment for admission” – Court held sponsorship amounted to payment for admission under Section 2(b)(viii), making duty applicable [Paras 15-16].

Legislative Intent – Definition of “Award Function” added in 2010 for concessional duty rate – Court concluded earlier functions also fell within “entertainment” definition, purpose of amendment was rate reduction not exclusion [Paras 12-14].

Penalty and Fine – Original and appellate orders imposing penalty lacked proper reference to specific statutory provisions – Court held imposition of penalty was unjustified and deleted it [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Entertainment duty upheld, penalty deleted – Impugned order modified accordingly [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Possession and Trafficking of Counterfeit Currency – Appellants convicted under Sections 489B and 489C IPC – Trial court’s judgment upheld – Evidence relied upon included testimonies of police officers and the seizure of counterfeit notes – Conviction based on reliable testimony of police personnel, despite lack of independent witnesses [Paras 1-15].

Procedure under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. – Examination of Accused – Failure to specifically question appellants on key evidence (Ext.P39) during examination under Section 313(1)(b) – Such omission deemed a significant procedural lapse – Conviction cannot stand due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements [Paras 16-18].

Relevance of Evidence under Section 27 of Evidence Act – Seizures made based on information from accused not complying with Section 27 requirements – Evidence insufficient to establish authorship of concealment – Seizures from premises not validly implicating appellants [Paras 11-13].

Testimony of Police Personnel – Credibility – Supreme Court’s stance on treating police testimony on par with other witnesses reiterated – No inherent distrust unless specific grounds exist – Evidence from PW9 considered reliable despite lack of corroboration from PW12 regarding other accused [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Convictions set aside due to procedural lapses and insufficiently framed charges – Appellants acquitted and set at liberty [Paras 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Reservation Policy – Affirmative Action – The High Court of Patna examined the constitutionality of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023, and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Amendment Act, 2023, which enhanced reservation in Bihar to 65% based on a Caste Survey. The High Court held that the amendments breached the 50% limit on reservations established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217, and affirmed by subsequent judgments. The Court found no extenuating circumstances to justify the breach and deemed the amendments unconstitutional [Paras 1-84].

Reservations – Adequate vs. Proportionate Representation – The High Court emphasized that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution provide for adequate representation, not proportionate representation. The Court reiterated that the principle of adequate representation does not equate to proportional representation and that any breach of the 50% reservation ceiling must be justified by exceptional circumstances, such as those inherent in far-flung and remote areas, which were not demonstrated in the present case [Paras 42-43, 67-70, 84].

Evidence Evaluation – The Court scrutinized the Caste Survey conducted by the State of Bihar, finding that it lacked an in-depth analysis and was based merely on proportional population data. The Court concluded that the State's enhancement of reservation percentages was not supported by a rational and scientific analysis of the collected data and did not consider factors like economic and social advancement of certain communities within the backward classes [Paras 61-73].

Decision – The High Court set aside the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023, and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Amendment Act, 2023, as ultra vires the Constitution and violative of the equality clause under Articles 14, 15, and 16. The writ petitions challenging the amendments were allowed [Para 84].

Easement by Grant – Right of Way – Extent of Pathway – Pathway described in the Will of the testator – Dispute over width and location of the pathway – Trial court limits the pathway width to 3 feet – First Appellate Court expands it to 6 feet – High Court finds lack of substantial evidence for both determinations – Concludes width of pathway to be 1.5 meters on the western end and 1.4 meters on the eastern end based on gate widths described in the Commissioner’s report [Paras 1-30].

Indian Succession Act – Section 70 vs. Section 152 – Contention on the cancellation of Will by subsequent settlement deeds – High Court holds that the relevant provision is Section 152 (ademption) and not Section 70 – Finds that Ext.A1 Will is not cancelled by execution of Exts.A2 and A3 settlement deeds [Paras 15-17].

Witness Testimony – Indian Evidence Act – Section 68 – Proving the Will – Contention that the Will is not proved due to non-examination of attesting witness – High Court finds no challenge to the Will by the defendant – Holds that non-examination does not affect the outcome in this case [Paras 18-20].

Travancore Nair Act – Section 22(1) – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Defendant’s contention of non-joinder of children of plaintiff under Section 22(1) – High Court finds contention raised for the first time in Second Appeal unsustainable – Holds no merit in the argument [Paras 21-23].

Decision- RSA No. 989 of 2006 disposed of with the modification that the width of the pathway is limited to 1.5 meters on the western end and 1.4 meters on the eastern end. All other findings of the First Appellate Court sustained. RSA No. 349 of 2007 dismissed. No costs ordered considering the relationship between the parties [Paras 31-32].

Writ of Mandamus – Regularization of Employment – Petitioners sought declaration as regular employees of the Irrigation Department – Challenge against rejection of regularization claims – Held, petitioners employed by a private contractor (M/s. Gammon India Limited) and not directly by the government – Absorption into departmental rolls for wage payment during a strike does not constitute regularization – Petitioners’ claims unsupported by evidence of absorption or precedent – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Regularization – Employment by Private Contractor – Petitioners, originally hired by a private contractor for a government project, claimed absorption in the Irrigation Department – Government argued petitioners were only temporarily added to rolls to mitigate a strike threat – Supreme Court and High Court precedents cited against regularization of contractor employees as government employees [Paras 8-17].

Employment Law – Article 226 – Scope of Writ of Mandamus – Court emphasized writ jurisdiction to enforce lawful public duties – Petitioners failed to demonstrate entitlement to regularization under constitutional or statutory law – Past litigation and Supreme Court directions considered – Claims held without merit [Paras 13-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners not entitled to regularization as employees of the Irrigation Department – No costs awarded – Miscellaneous applications, if any, also dismissed [Paras 20].