Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction – SARFAESI Act – Petition challenging civil court's jurisdiction to entertain suit for prohibitory injunction against bank’s actions under SARFAESI Act – Respondent claimed tenancy and sought to prevent bank from taking possession – High Court held that jurisdiction of civil court barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act unless action of secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or claim is untenable – No allegations of fraud made – Civil court's jurisdiction barred – Plaint rejected. [Paras 1-18]

SARFAESI Act – Remedies and Jurisdiction – Sections 13, 17 & 34 – Remedy for aggrieved persons against actions under Section 13(4) lies with Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – Civil courts barred from entertaining suits on matters covered by DRT – High Court emphasizes remedies under SARFAESI Act are adequate and expeditious – Civil court’s intervention unnecessary and prohibited unless fraud alleged. [Paras 11-16]

Decision – Rejection of Plaint – Court sets aside lower court's order dismissing application for rejection of plaint – Orders rejection of plaint filed by respondent – Directs respondent to approach DRT within two weeks for redressal of grievances – Ensures respondent not left remediless by permitting delayed appeal before DRT. [Para 18-20]

Family Law – Pension – Co-widow's Entitlement – Appeal by co-widow claiming equal share of family pension after husband's death – Appellant married during first wife's lifetime – First wife predeceased husband – Trial court directed equal share of pension to both widows – Appellant entitled to complete family pension after first wife's death – High Court references previous rulings confirming entitlement of second wife to full pension if first wife predeceases husband – Appeal allowed, appellant entitled to complete family pension from date of first wife's death. [Paras 1-22]

Hindu Succession Act – Interpretation – Section 10 Rule 1 – Co-widows entitled to equal shares of property upon intestate's death – Co-widow’s entitlement confirmed by evidence of marriage and voter list registration – Co-widow's pension rights upheld by previous judicial interpretations. [Para 9]

Punjab Civil Service Rules – Interpretation – Rule 6.17 Sub Rule IV Note 1 – Pension rights for multiple widows – Rules read in conjunction with Hindu Succession Act confirming equal shares to co-widows – Entitlement extends to full pension upon predeceasing of one widow. [Paras 8-10]

Decision – Entitlement to Complete Family Pension – Court sets aside lower appellate court's judgment – Restores trial court’s judgment modified to grant appellant complete family pension from the date of first wife's death along with 9% interest – Confirms rights of co-widows under family pension scheme and succession laws. [Para 22]

Election Law – Limitation for Election Petitions – Application to dismiss election petition filed one day after the expiry of limitation period – Election results declared on 16.05.2014, 45-day limitation ended on 29.06.2014 during court vacation – Petition filed on 30.06.2014 – High Court held that election petition should have been filed within vacation period as court’s ministerial functions continued – No provision to relax limitation period – Petition filed beyond limitation period dismissed. [Paras 1-31]

General Clauses Act – Application of Section 10 – Computation of Time – Section 10 allows act to be done on next working day if the period expires on a holiday – Court vacation does not imply closure of administrative functions – Election petition should be filed within prescribed period despite vacations – High Court dismisses petition filed after expiry of limitation, emphasizing adherence to statutory period. [Paras 8-28]

Decision – Dismissal of Election Petition – Court dismisses election petition as time-barred – Emphasizes strict compliance with statutory limitation period under Representation of the People Act – Reinforces that vacations do not extend limitation period for filing election petitions. [Para 31]

Disability Law – Job Reservation – Eligibility and Suitability – Appellants, who are differently-abled with 40% to 50% disability and possess National Trade Certificate in the trade of Lineman, were not recruited despite vacancies – Held, state did not provide factual basis for safety concerns – Authorities directed to reconsider claim and offer appointments – Vacancies advertised in 2011 must be filled based on 2011 criteria, not 2013 guidelines – Respondents directed to offer appointments to appellants and similarly-placed candidates within two weeks – Appellants entitled to seniority and notional pay fixation from the date others were appointed, without back wages. [Paras 1-8]

Non-Discrimination in Employment – Analysis – Held – Parliament enacted the Disabilities Act to ensure equal opportunities and protection of rights for differently-abled persons – State and stakeholders must identify suitable posts and make efforts for appointments to integrate differently-abled persons into the mainstream – Misconceptions about the abilities of differently-abled persons led to unjust non-consideration – Authorities directed to re-evaluate claims based on 2011 eligibility criteria, ensuring no candidate is compelled to seek court intervention. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Allowing Appeal – Court sets aside the order of the Single Judge and allows the writ petition – Directs respondents to appoint appellants and other similarly-placed differently-abled persons within two weeks – Appellants entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation from the date other candidates were appointed, excluding back wages. [Para 8]

Service Law – Retirement Benefits – Employees appointed after establishment of autonomous status of PGIMER but before implementation of Central Government pay scales – Tribunal directed grant of pensionary benefits on Punjab Pay Scale pattern – Audit objection claimed applicability of Central Government pay scales – High Court holds that employees' service conditions were aligned with Punjab Government employees' terms – Petition dismissed, Tribunal's order upheld. [Paras 1-30]

Pension and Retiral Benefits – Interpretation of Section 28 of PGIMER Act and Regulation 40 – Employees continued to draw Punjab Pay Scales after establishment of Institute as autonomous body – Regulation 40 allows parity with Punjab pay scales – High Court finds no distinction between employees recruited before and after autonomy regarding pensionary benefits – Audit objections baseless. [Para 19]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – High Court dismisses PGIMER's petition challenging Tribunal's order – Orders restoration of pension and related benefits on Punjab Pay Scale pattern to respondents – Reiterates that conditions of service, including pension, cannot be altered to employees' disadvantage without approval. [Paras 30]

Service Law – Disability – Compulsory Retirement – Petition challenging order retiring petitioner on medical grounds due to disability – Petitioner contracted ‘diffuse brain atrophy and parkinsonism’ while in service – High Court held that the petitioner should have been offered an alternative post per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act – Employer’s failure to do so was against statutory provisions – Petition allowed, retirement order quashed – Respondent authorities directed to offer suitable alternative post and grant consequential benefits – Pension benefits already received to be adjusted. [Paras 1-11]

Disability Law – Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities Act – Non-Discrimination in Employment – Statutory obligation on employer to provide alternative post to employees acquiring disability during service – High Court emphasized statutory right to suitable employment instead of compulsory retirement – Employer’s duty to inform employees of their rights under the Act – Petition allowed due to failure of employer to comply with statutory provisions. [Paras 7-9]

Decision – Quashing of Retirement Order – High Court quashes order dated 1.2.2002 retiring petitioner on medical grounds – Directs respondent authorities to offer petitioner a suitable post with same pay scale and service benefits – Petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits as per law – Pension benefits to be adjusted. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Law – Bribery and Corruption – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Trial court found appellant guilty of taking bribe for restoring electric supply – Appellant argued that complainant had poor moral character and shadow witness did not support prosecution – Held, termination of complainant unrelated to moral character – Shadow witness's non-support does not invalidate prosecution if corroborated by other evidence – Demand and acceptance of bribe can be proven through circumstantial evidence – Recovery from co-accused’s cash box deemed immaterial as it showed deliberate acceptance of bribe – Phenolphthalein powder detected on appellant’s hands – Conviction upheld. [Paras 1-40]

Evidence Law – Shadow Witness and Corroboration – Non-support by shadow witness not fatal if other evidence corroborates – Independent corroboration can include official witnesses – Acceptance of bribe can be established through circumstantial evidence and scientific tests – Appellant’s deliberate actions inferred from handling tainted currency notes and subsequent recovery. [Paras 29-37]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – High Court upholds conviction and sentence – Finds no illegality in trial court’s judgment – Emphasizes corroboration of prosecution’s version by complainant and scientific evidence – Appellant’s actions demonstrated conscious acceptance of bribe. [Paras 41-43]

Service Law – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Full Exoneration – Petitioner, a Patwari, was dismissed from service following conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Acquitted on appeal and reinstated without salary for the period of dismissal – Held, under Rule 7.3(ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, a fully exonerated employee upon reinstatement is entitled to full pay and allowances – Rule 7.5 further supports full salary if the acquittal arises from circumstances beyond control – Denial of salary despite reinstatement is contradictory and unjust – Writ petition allowed, directing payment of full arrears of salary for dismissal period. [Paras 1-20]

Dismissal and Reinstatement – Analysis – Held – Government employee dismissed solely based on criminal conviction without separate departmental proceedings – Upon acquittal and reinstatement, full salary entitlement under Rule 7.3(ii) and Rule 7.5 – Competent authority’s decision to reinstate yet deny wages contradictory and against statutory provisions – Equitable principles and legal precedents mandate full salary for the period of wrongful dismissal. [Paras 10-19]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court modifies order dated 16.09.2011 to grant petitioner full pay and allowances for period of dismissal – Competent authority directed to calculate and release benefits within two months – Ensures justice and compliance with statutory rules for reinstated employees following exoneration. [Para 20]

Civil Procedure – Dismissal of Appeal – Repeated Adjournments – Appellant sought repeated adjournments, delaying the appeal for 4-5 years – Non-appearance of counsel on hearing date led to dismissal – Held, appellant cannot assert absolute right to hearing on merits – Second appeal jurisdiction limited to substantial questions of law – Dismissal appropriate due to appellant's conduct and procedural rules. [Paras 1-6]

Judicial Discretion and Conduct of Parties – Analysis – Held – Appellant’s conduct, seeking numerous adjournments, constitutes abuse of process – Justice Syed Mahmood's principle of ‘statute of repose’ applied to end protracted litigation – Litigants must expect litigation to conclude within reasonable time – Court justified in denying hearing on merits based on appellant's inactivity and non-appearance. [Paras 5-6]

Decision – Dismissing Appeal – Court dismisses the appeal due to appellant’s repeated failure to proceed and non-appearance – Emphasizes need for finality in litigation and adherence to procedural rules – No order as to costs. [Para 6]