Land Law - Redetermination of Surplus Area - Suo Moto Powers – Financial Commissioner invoked suo moto powers after 11 years to redetermine surplus area – Held, such invocation not permissible once determination has attained finality up to the High Court – Surplus area vested and mutated in favor of the State, utilized, and not available for redetermination – Arbitrary and without jurisdiction – Orders set aside. [Paras 15, 17, 20]

Jurisdictional Limits - Finality of Orders - Non-Reopenable Cases – Once surplus area determination becomes final, it cannot be reopened arbitrarily – Financial Commissioner lacked jurisdiction as per notification delineating authority among benches – Final orders from High Court bind revisional authorities – Reopening based on assumptions about age verification of landowner’s son invalid. [Paras 15-17]

Public Administration - Legal Finality and Administrative Efficiency – Once land vested and allotted, re-determination of surplus area undermines administrative efficiency and legal certainty – State failed to provide evidence that allotments were paper transactions – Petitioners' possession and utilization of land legally recognized and unchallenged – Reopening surplus area after long lapse deemed misuse of suo moto powers. [Paras 20, 22]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 28.08.2006, 31.10.2008, and 18.04.2009 set aside – Redetermination of surplus area held arbitrary and without jurisdiction. [Para 23]

Motor Vehicles Act - Classification of Transport and Non-Transport Vehicles – Petitioner’s vehicles used to ferry employees – Held, there is an intelligible differentia between private and commercial use of vehicles – Vehicles carrying employees for trade/business purposes fall under 'private service vehicle' per Section 2(33) – Such vehicles classified as transport vehicles under the Act. [Paras 8-9]

Taxation Law - Punjab Passenger and Goods Taxation Act - Definition and Tax Liability – Vehicles used to transport employees fall under 'motor vehicle' in the Act – Employees considered passengers despite no fare being charged – Tax computed as per explanation to Section 3(1) – Petitioners' vehicles liable for passenger tax as they are not private carriers. [Paras 12-15]

Judicial Interpretation - Validity of Classification and Tax Imposition – Classification by the respondents deemed logical and legal – Distinct categorization of vehicles based on ownership and usage upheld – Petitioners' challenge to tax imposition on vehicles dismissed. [Paras 8-10, 15-16]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Classification of petitioners' vehicles as transport vehicles and imposition of passenger tax upheld. [Paras 16-17]

Service Law - Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme - Deputation and Absorption – Petitioner challenged CAT order granting Senior Scale to respondent by counting service rendered on deputation before absorption – Held, deputation period must be counted towards minimum qualifying years for Senior Scale/Selection Grade – Government’s ACP Scheme guidelines mandate inclusion of deputation service if pay scale remains the same before and after absorption – Administrative policy to the contrary invalid for ACP benefits – Tribunal’s order upheld. [Paras 4-6]

Statutory Interpretation - ACP Scheme and Service on Deputation – Interpretation of ACP Scheme guidelines confirms that service on deputation is to be included for computing eligibility for Senior Scale/Selection Grade – Benefit of ACP intended to provide incentives to employees stagnated without promotion – Administrative decisions conflicting with statutory guidelines not sustainable – Personal benefit of Senior Scale independent of seniority considerations for other employees. [Paras 5-7]

Judicial Review - Administrative Decisions and Statutory Compliance – Tribunal’s adherence to statutory ACP guidelines affirmed – Administrative policies conflicting with statutory entitlements struck down – Respondent entitled to Senior Scale from 24.07.2001, counting service from deputation commencement date. [Paras 6-8]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Tribunal order upheld – Respondent entitled to Senior Scale counting service from deputation period. [Para 8]

Constitutional Law - Articles 32 and 226 - Res Judicata and Procedural Bars in Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioners filed applications for transferring cases to NGT after similar applications were previously withdrawn – Held, principles of res judicata and CPC provisions apply to writ jurisdiction under Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction Rules – Earlier withdrawal of applications constitutes relinquishment of claims – Petitioners cannot re-agitate same relief in subsequent applications – Writ jurisdiction requires observance of procedural fairness and public policy rules. [Paras 32-35]

Administrative Law - Transfer of Cases - Jurisdictional Competence – Petitioners sought transfer of environmental matters to specialized NGT – High Court previously dismissed similar transfer applications – Subsequent applications barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 read with Section 141 CPC – Transfer petitions cannot be reconsidered without setting aside earlier orders – High Court retains jurisdiction to decide environmental matters not transferred to NGT. [Paras 33-41]

Public Interest Litigation - Re-agitation of Claims – Public interest litigations are not exempt from procedural principles like res judicata – Withdrawal of earlier applications precludes re-agitation of same issues – Procedural consistency and judicial discipline necessitate adherence to finality of orders – Petitioners directed to seek recall or modification of earlier orders if aggrieved. [Paras 35, 40]

Decision: Applications dismissed – Petitioners’ plea for transfer of cases to NGT rejected – Earlier dismissal of similar applications deemed conclusive and binding – No merit found in re-agitating transfer petitions. [Paras 41-42]

Administrative Law - Applicability of CPC Rules to Tribunal Proceedings – Tribunal's approach in ignoring specific allegations in Original Application regarding non-communication of subsequent Written Test Notice and interview scheduling, despite written statement's evasive denial, caused prejudice – CPC Rules governing pleadings apply fully to Tribunal proceedings – Evasive denial leads to deemed admission of allegations – Tribunal's order unsustainable. [Paras 5-6]

Service Law - Family Pension Scheme - Eligibility Despite Non-regularization – Deceased employee worked continuously for over 14 years and passed medical examination – Despite passing written test, never called for interview – No rule mandating interview for regularization – Non-communication of test schedules not employee’s fault – Widow entitled to family pension and retiral benefits by notionally treating service as regularized – Tribunal's contrary order set aside. [Paras 10-11]

Principles of Natural Justice - Evasive Denials and Fair Hearing – Written statement’s evasive denial of specific allegations regarding interview and test communication – Tribunal failed to consider these specific contentions – Principles of natural justice violated – Specific allegations left unchallenged deemed admitted – Impugned order quashed. [Paras 5, 11]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned Tribunal order set aside – Respondents directed to grant family pension and other retiral benefits by notionally treating the deceased employee’s service as regularized – Petitioner entitled to arrears of pension for three years preceding Original Application filing date (May 2012) onwards – Compliance within four months. [Para 11-12]

Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - Recruitment Standards and Qualifications – Petitioner challenged the selection of respondent No. 4 for the post of Statistical Assistant – Respondent’s Master of Commerce degree lacked Statistics as a required subject – Held, recruitment rules specified Statistics as one of the papers at the Master's or Bachelor's level – Equivalent qualifications not acceptable unless explicitly provided in the rules – Selection of respondent No. 4 set aside due to non-fulfillment of prescribed qualifications – Petition allowed, selection authorities directed to reconsider petitioner’s candidature. [Paras 1, 7, 11, 19]

Recruitment Rules - Specificity and Equivalence – Examination of recruitment rules showed clear requirement of Statistics at the Master's or Bachelor's level for the Statistical Assistant post – Equivalent qualifications like Quantitative Analysis and Managerial Applications not acceptable as Statistics – Authorities cannot equate different subjects unless rules explicitly allow – Respondent No. 4 did not meet specific qualifications prescribed, selection and appointment invalid. [Paras 11, 13]

Interview Marks and Fairness in Selection – Petitioner alleged arbitrariness in awarding interview marks – Authorities failed to produce original records for review – Marks awarded appeared arbitrary favoring respondent No. 4 – Interview and academic marks should be confidential and handled separately to avoid bias – Respondents directed to revise interview process ensuring transparency and fairness. [Paras 13-14, 18-20]

Decision: Petition allowed – Selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Statistical Assistant set aside – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's candidature and complete the process within three months – Selection authorities to ensure confidentiality and fairness in awarding marks in future recruitments. [Paras 19-25]

Service Law - Promotion Criteria - Common Seniority List – Petitioners, Senior Scale Stenographers/Reporters, challenged the promotion of Personal Assistants to Private Secretary – Held, Rule 11 stipulates a common seniority list for promotion – Absence of common list violated Rule 11 – Promotions solely from Personal Assistants cadre from 1981 to 1995 deemed arbitrary and contrary to rules – Promotion of respondent No. 4 set aside – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioners’ promotion with retrospective effect and extend all service and monetary benefits. [Paras 11, 13]

Statutory Interpretation - Common Seniority Requirement – Method of recruitment under 1981 Rules prescribes common seniority list for Personal Assistant, Senior Scale Stenographer, and Reporter for Private Secretary promotions – Failure to prepare common list and promoting only Personal Assistants violates Rule 11 – Seniority-cum-merit criteria ignored – State’s arbitrary promotions disregarded rules, favoring Personal Assistants unduly. [Paras 11-12]

Judicial Review - Equity in Promotion Decisions – Equity considerations cannot justify illegal promotions – Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Patil v. Gulbarga University emphasized setting aside illegal selections irrespective of time lapse – Petitioners entitled to reconsideration of promotion with backdated benefits despite retirement – Respondents' contrary argument rejected. [Para 12]

Decision: Petition allowed – Promotion of respondent No. 4 to Private Secretary set aside – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioners’ names for promotion from date of respondent No. 4’s promotion and extend service and monetary benefits within four months. [Para 13-14]

Rent Law - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Impleadment of Third Parties – Petitioner/landlord filed for ejectment of tenant – Respondents No. 1 & 2 filed for impleadment claiming ownership of mortgaged property – Rent Controller allowed application – Held, dispute of ownership should be decided by Civil Court, not Rent Controller – Third-party claiming ownership is not a necessary party in rent proceedings – Revision petition allowed, Rent Controller’s order set aside. [Paras 9-12]

Statutory Interpretation - Definition of Landlord under Section 2(c) – Landlord defined as any person entitled to receive rent, irrespective of ownership – Ownership disputes irrelevant in rent control proceedings – Apex Court in K.D. Dewan v. Harbhajan Singh Parihar held ownership not necessary for landlord status – Landlord includes anyone entitled to rent receipt. [Paras 10-11]

Judicial Precedents - Master of Suit Principle – Landlord-tenant relationship central to rent proceedings – Ownership disputes to be pursued in separate civil suits – Reliance on Ram Parkash v. Amar Nath and Subhash Chander v. Lala Baij Nath Aggarwal – Third-party ownership claims not relevant in eviction petitions under Rent Act – Petitioners' impleadment application dismissed. [Paras 12-13]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Rent Controller’s order dated 22.01.2016 set aside – Impleadment of third parties in eviction petition dismissed. [Para 14]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - Expeditious Procedure - Judicial Review – Rent Act intended to provide special and expeditious procedure – Authorities can devise own procedure free from technicalities, except for Sections 16 and 17 – Basic principles of CPC must be observed – Objection to admissibility of documents should be raised before endorsement – Rent Controller must pass appropriate orders on objections regarding proof and admissibility. [Paras 1, 9, 14]

Civil Procedure - Admissibility of Documents - Timely Objections – Objections to documents’ admissibility must be raised before endorsement as evidence – Court must consider and record decision on objections – Once endorsed, documents cannot be de-exhibited – Admissibility and proof must be tested before judgment. [Paras 14-15, 28]

Procedural Fairness - Principles of Natural Justice – Procedure adopted by Rent Controller must be just, reasonable, equitable, and satisfy principles of natural justice – Procedural law flexibility does not allow violation of these principles – Objections to documents to be decided promptly to avoid prejudice. [Paras 10, 16, 27]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Rent Controller directed to decide objections on admissibility and proof of documents before proceeding further. [Paras 29-30]