Labour Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioners, employed as binders and printers on a piece-rate basis, sought regularization after working for over 22 years – Government rejected their claim citing lack of direct employment records – Petitioners contended employment was continuous despite being through contractors to circumvent direct employment evidence [Paras 1-7].

Evidence of Continuous Employment – Petitioners provided salary and attendance records, inspection reports, and affidavits indicating continuous employment from 2000 to 2023, albeit through different contractors – Government acknowledged petitioners' service but cited a lack of continuous employment between 2011 and 2015 [Paras 8-19].

Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Petitioners relied on judgments in Nagendra S.G. and Sheo Narain Nagar cases to assert their right to regularization – Court considered the principle of granting monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement from Ranbir Singh case due to the closure of the printing press [Paras 20-33].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Petitioners entitled to monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000 per year of service from 2000 to 2010 and Rs. 50,000 per year from 2016 to 2023 – Compensation to be paid within two months in lieu of reinstatement and regularization, serving as full settlement of all claims [Paras 34-38].
 

Election Law – Disqualification of Candidate – Petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 1 to Biruvalli Gram Panchayat on grounds of disqualification under Section 12(h) of the Act, claiming respondent had a share or interest in work done by the Panchayat – Election Tribunal rejected the petition, leading to this writ petition [Paras 1-2].

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Section 12(h) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act – Tribunal found no disqualification as respondent No. 1 had no subsisting contract with the Panchayat at the time of election notification – Clarification by Karnataka State Election Commission emphasized disqualification applies only with an existing contract [Paras 3, 8].

Conflict of Interest – Purpose of Disqualification – Court noted the purpose of Section 12(h) is to prevent conflict of interest – Applied purposive interpretation to hold disqualification applies only where there is a subsisting contract, avoiding an unreasonable and absurd consequence of disqualifying any member with past contracts [Paras 18-33].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld that only a subsisting contract can disqualify a candidate under Section 12(h) of the Act – No interference warranted with the Tribunal’s findings [Paras 34-39].

Service Law – Back Wages – Reinstatement Following Illegal Termination – Petitioner, a Lecturer, was terminated illegally and reinstated after 10 years without back wages – Held, reinstatement does not automatically entitle one to back wages; requires proving non-gainful employment during the period – Fault lies with the employer (governing body) for non-compliance – Order to regularize service and disburse consequential financial benefits [Paras 6-13].

Grant of Back Wages – No Work No Pay Principle – Supreme Court precedents cited indicating exceptions to the principle when the fault lies with the employer – Petitioner diligently pursued reinstatement, indicating lack of gainful employment – Employer’s inaction deemed unlawful, warranting full back wages [Paras 10-12].

Regularization of Service – Government and Governing Body’s Responsibility – State authorities directed to ensure compliance with the Director’s order for reinstatement and regularization – State’s plea of helplessness rejected; model employer obligation emphasized [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Orders for regularization of petitioner’s service from 23.09.1995 to 09.01.2006 with all consequential financial benefits – Compliance required within two months [Para 15].
 

Public Law Compensation – Electrocution Incident – Breach of Public Duty – Petitioners sought Rs. 25 lakhs compensation for the death of their 3-year-old son, who was electrocuted by a high voltage line abutting their house’s terrace. Respondent-authorities rejected the claim, attributing the incident to illegal construction by petitioners. The Court recognized the jurisdiction of writ courts to award compensation in public law for breach of fundamental rights under Article 21. Interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs was granted, allowing petitioners to seek further compensation in civil courts [Paras 1-16].

Negligence and Contributory Negligence – Despite allegations of illegal construction by petitioners, the Court highlighted the failure of the respondent authorities to take preventive measures against such constructions, contributing to the incident. Compensation granted was based on principles of strict liability and contributory negligence [Paras 11-12].

Legal Precedents – Court referenced multiple Supreme Court decisions affirming compensation under public law for constitutional breaches, emphasizing strict liability in cases of public duty failure, and distinguished between public law remedies and private law actions for damages [Paras 7-10].

Interim Relief and Civil Suit – Interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to be disbursed within two months, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue additional compensation in civil court. The period of pending petition excluded from limitation for filing such suits [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Interim compensation awarded, case disposed of with liberties for further legal action [Paras 16].

Arbitration Tribunal Jurisdiction – Sub-Contractors – Whether a Sub-Contractor is a “Party” under Section 2(g) of the Bihar Public Work Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 – Petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order rejecting their application on grounds of non-maintainability, claiming they are a party under the Act as Sub-Contractor/Executor [Paras 1-3]​​.

Interpretation of "Party" – Wider Meaning – The High Court held that the definition of "Party" under Section 2(g) of the Tribunal Act, 2008 includes Sub-Contractors/Executors – Cited Supreme Court precedents to substantiate the broader interpretation of "Party" including those who execute work on behalf of a contractor [Paras 11-16]​​.

Contract Execution and Acknowledgement – Conduct and "Sub Silentio" Acceptance – The court emphasized that the conduct of the respondents, including the acceptance of work done by the petitioner, establishes the petitioner's role as an Executor – Found the Tribunal's rejection of the petitioner's claim as arbitrary and illegal [Paras 20-28]​​.

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11.08.2014 is set aside – Matter remanded back to the Tribunal to adjudicate and settle the dispute within four months – Confirmed that a Sub-Contractor who executes work on behalf of a contractor falls within the definition of "Party" under Section 2(g) of the Tribunal Act, 2008 [Paras 28-30]​​.

Commissions of Inquiry – Continuation and Cessation – The court addressed the procedural aspects concerning the cessation of a Commission of Inquiry under Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The court held that the mere expiration of the Commission’s term does not automatically imply cessation. A formal notification specifying the cessation of the Commission is mandatory [Paras 3.1-3.2].

Revival and Continuation of Inquiry – The court allowed for the possibility of the Government reviving the Commission of Inquiry, given the absence of a formal cessation notification. The court concluded that the Government retains the power to extend or continue the Commission’s mandate to fulfill its purpose, particularly when the inquiry report has been quashed on technical grounds [Paras 3.18-3.20].

Difference in Judicial Opinions – The case involved divergent opinions between two judges on whether the Commission could proceed from where it left off before its term ended. Justice Kshetarpal concluded that the Commission could continue its proceedings from the stage when the notice under Section 8B was required to be issued, aligning with the opinion that the Government could decide on its continuation [Paras 1.1-1.6].

Decision:

Writ petition partly allowed. The Government is at liberty to decide on the continuation of the Commission. The Commission may proceed from the stage of issuing notice under Section 8B of the Act.

Simultaneous Proceedings – Departmental and Criminal – The court reiterated the principle that departmental proceedings and criminal trials can proceed simultaneously, as there is no legal bar for both to be conducted at the same time. The primary consideration is whether the departmental proceedings should be stayed to avoid prejudice to the defense in the criminal case. This is particularly relevant in cases involving identical facts and charges of a grave nature involving complicated questions of law and fact. However, mere similarity in facts is not sufficient to stay departmental proceedings [Paras 1-16].

Non-Disclosure of Defense – The court dismissed the contention that proceeding with the departmental inquiry would force the petitioner to disclose their defense in the criminal case. The court emphasized that the standard of proof and procedural rules in criminal and departmental proceedings differ significantly, with the former requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt and the latter relying on the preponderance of probabilities [Paras 5-8, 10].

Expeditious Conclusion – Emphasizing the need for early conclusion of departmental proceedings, the court highlighted the importance of maintaining discipline and efficiency in public service. Delaying disciplinary proceedings indefinitely until the conclusion of the criminal trial is not in the interest of the department or public service [Paras 11-14].

Decision:

Both writ petitions are dismissed. The court ruled that there was no ground to stay the examination of common witnesses in the departmental proceedings until they were examined in the criminal trial. The court did not opine on the merits of the allegations in either the criminal or departmental proceedings, leaving it to the respective authorities to decide independently in accordance with the law.

Interrogatories – Land Acquisition Case – Denial of Application – Petition challenging order of Sub Judge, Vaishali, Hajipur, denying interrogatories to the petitioner – High Court upheld lower court’s decision, emphasizing judicial discretion in allowing interrogatories – Found no error in the order rejecting the interrogatories application [Paras 1-5]​​.

Writ Jurisdiction – Distinction Under Articles 226 and 227 – Reference to Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath ruling that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, but Article 227 can be invoked for supervisory jurisdiction – Emphasized procedural compliance as per amended High Court Rules, converting writ petitions to civil miscellaneous petitions [Paras 2, 3, 4]​​.

Judicial Discretion – Use of Interrogatories – Court emphasized that allowing interrogatories is a matter of judicial discretion aimed at aiding fair trial, not an absolute right – Reiterated the necessity for substantial reason to interfere with trial court’s discretion [Paras 3-5]​​.

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Writ petition converted to Civil Miscellaneous Petition as per procedural requirements – Directed registry to facilitate conversion and prioritize listing before appropriate bench [Paras 4-5]​​.

Parole – Repetition of Petitions – Petitioner sought parole for the daughter’s marriage, previously filed and withdrawn – Concealment of relevant orders – Fresh petition dismissed due to identical cause of action with only a change in marriage date – Petitioner’s conduct deprecable for concealment and repetitive filing [Paras 1-8].

Maintenance of Judicial Records – Misuse of Court’s Process – Emphasizes necessity for petitioners to disclose all relevant orders and not misuse the court’s process by refiling similar petitions with minor changes – Court refrains from imposing costs due to the petitioner’s incarceration [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No costs imposed considering the petitioner’s current confinement [Paras 8-9].