Contract Employment – Regularization of Services – Special Magistrate Courts established to reduce case pendency – Employees recruited on contract basis through a selection process – Government refusal to regularize services due to absence of specific enabling provisions – Comparability with Fast Track Courts whose contract staff were regularized based on Supreme Court direction [Paras 1-20].

Supreme Court Rulings – Umadevi Case – Distinction between irregular and illegal appointments – Irregular appointments can be regularized if appointed through a transparent process – Court directed regularization of petitioners appointed through due selection process, aligning with principles from Umadevi and Renu cases [Paras 13-18].

Precedent from Telangana High Court – Contract employees in similar circumstances were directed to be regularized – Public interest in retaining experienced employees [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Directed respondents to regularize services of petitioners within three months – No costs ordered [Para 20].

Seniority – Counting of Service Period – Contractual to Regular Appointment:
Private respondents initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Electrical) on a contractual basis but through the regular recruitment process – Services regularized without interruption – Entitlement to seniority from the date of initial contract appointment – Contractual appointments made following due process under R&P Rules – Distinction between regular and ad-hoc appointments highlighted [Paras 1-29].

Contractual appointment policy seen as exploitative – Appointments followed due process as per R&P Rules, hence regularization must consider initial appointment date – Appellants’ argument that regular employees should not equate with contract-based ones refuted – Judgments in Rashi Mani Mishra and Amit Singh inapplicable due to different contexts [Paras 10-17].
Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment by learned Single Judge upheld – Seniority of private respondents to be counted from initial contract appointment date – Regularization affirmed without interruption [Para 29].
 

Property Law – Rights of Widow – Appellant’s rights in deceased husband’s property ceased upon remarriage – Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 applied – Court held that remarriage caused widow to lose her rights in the deceased husband’s estate – Estate to devolve upon the next heirs of deceased husband [Paras 17-22].

Succession – Possession and Title – Plaintiff’s plea of possession through relationship with widow dismissed – Plaintiff failed to prove possession and title through cogent evidence – Lower appellate court erred in granting decree of injunction based on unsubstantiated relationship and possession claims [Paras 23-25].

Procedural Law – Successors not Impleaded – No successor of deceased husband impleaded in the suit – Injunction suit failed without necessary parties – Mere plea of possession not sufficient for decree without proving title and proper succession [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court set aside – Original suit dismissed for lack of evidence on possession and title [Paras 26-28].

Live-in Relationship – Protection of Minor – The petitioners sought protection for their life and liberty, as they were in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their families – Petitioner No.2 is a minor aged 17 years – The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to ensure the safety of the minor by producing her before the Child Welfare Committee, as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [Paras 1-7].

Juvenile Justice – Directions for Minor – The Court issued directions based on the precedent set in the case of P. Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana and another [CRWP-2139-2022], ensuring the minor's protection and appropriate placement by the Child Welfare Committee – The Committee was instructed to conduct an inquiry and take decisions regarding the minor’s safety and well-being [Paras 6-7].

Decision:

The petition was disposed of with directions to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, to ensure the minor’s safety and to consider the petitioners' representation for protection. The ongoing investigation was not to be hindered by this order.

Limitation Period – Article 60 of Limitation Act – Suit filed by minors – Time limit for challenging deed executed by guardian: The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs, who were minors at the time of deed execution, must be within three years of attaining majority. Based on evidence, the plaintiffs failed to meet this requirement, rendering their claims barred by limitation [Paras 10-15].

Validity of Deed – Legal Necessity and Benefit to Minors: The court discussed the necessity of proving legal necessity for the sale of property executed by a guardian on behalf of minors. The plaintiffs did not establish that the sale was for their benefit, and the court found the deed to be executed without the required legal necessity [Paras 16-18].

Evidence – Reliability of Documents and Testimonies: The court scrutinized the school admission register and testimonies to ascertain the dates of birth of the plaintiffs. It found that the interpolations in the school register were apparent and the testimonies were not reliable, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation [Paras 11-14, 17].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and affirming the dismissal order of the Trial Court, thereby dismissing the suit (T.S. No. 49 of 1974) [Paras 19-20].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Allegations of Dowry Harassment and Attempted Murder – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under Sections 498-A, 307, 509, 313, 403, 409 read with 34 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations included demand for dowry, misappropriation of gold, and forced abortion – Investigation revealed incidents both in India and the USA – Petitioners contended that incidents in the USA could not be prosecuted without Central Government sanction as per Section 188 CrPC – Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary due to the nature of the dispute and ongoing investigation [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction – Application of Section 188 CrPC – Examined applicability of Section 188 CrPC regarding prosecution of offences committed abroad – Referenced Telangana High Court's decision emphasizing requirement of Central Government sanction for such prosecution – Court found no challenge to this principle by the respondent [Paras 4].

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted – Petitioners to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to personal bonds and sureties – Conditions imposed for marking attendance before the investigating officer and cooperation with the investigation – Emphasis on non-interference with witnesses [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – NDPS Act – Petitioner sought regular bail for being implicated in a narcotics case based on the disclosure statement of co-accused without any recovery from him. The petitioner argued for bail citing prior similar bail grants and lengthy custody without trial progression.

Multiple Cases and Habitual Offender – Petitioner had numerous previous cases under the NDPS Act and other convictions under the Excise Act, establishing a pattern of habitual offenses. The court highlighted the petitioner’s extensive criminal history and reiterated the stringent bail provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are in addition to those under Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-15].

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Conditions – Emphasized that bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act necessitates satisfying twin conditions: the accused has not committed the offense and is not likely to commit an offense. These conditions could not be satisfied due to the petitioner’s history of similar offenses [Paras 13-14].

Change in Circumstances – Court noted no significant change in circumstances since the last bail application was denied, reaffirming the rejection of the current bail plea [Para 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The court held that the petitioner’s extensive criminal record and failure to demonstrate changes in circumstances warranted rejection of bail. The prior instances of bail granted to co-accused were not seen as grounds to grant bail to the petitioner, given his habitual offender status [Paras 15].

Bail Application – NDPS Act – The petitioner, accused under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, sought bail after being in custody for nearly four months – The Court considered that the petitioner was named in the FIR solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, and no contraband was recovered from him – Trial had not yet begun, and the Court highlighted the prolonged pre-conviction detention and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 [Paras 1-6].

Right to Speedy Trial – The Court emphasized that continued detention without trial constitutes a violation of the right to a speedy trial – The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, stressing that pre-conviction detention should be minimized and that undue delay in trials could impair the accused’s defense [Para 5].

Previous Convictions – While acknowledging the petitioner's involvement in other FIRs, the Court held that bail should not be denied solely on this ground – The Court referenced the judgment in Baljinder Singh alias Rock v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-25914-2022], underscoring that each case must be evaluated on its own merits [Para 5].

Decision:

The petitioner was granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Service Tax – Exemption for Sub-Contractors – Assessment Order Challenged – Petitioner engaged in execution of works contracts as a sub-contractor argued that the services rendered were exempt from service tax. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce conclusive evidence supporting the claim of exemption and also questioned the authenticity of the agreement presented. The court highlighted procedural requirements and the necessity of substantial evidence to support exemption claims under the Finance Act [Paras 3-14].

Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedy – The court emphasized that the proper recourse for the petitioner was to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Tax and Central Excise rather than directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy [Paras 8-16].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – The High Court upheld the order of the assessing authority, emphasizing that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal process. No costs were awarded. All pending interlocutory applications were closed [Paras 15-16].