Administrative Law – Compassionate Allowance and Benefits After Dismissal – Petitioner seeks judicial review of the decision rejecting his claim for compassionate allowance and other benefits following his dismissal from service in 2001 – The petitioner remained inactive for 21 years before initiating legal action – High Court emphasizes the principles of delay and laches, noting that unexplained long delays can detrimentally affect the entitlement to relief – Court holds that attempts to revive a lapsed cause of action are impermissible and, in the presence of a valid dismissal order, entitlement to retiral benefits does not arise [Paras 1-10].

Constitutional Law – Jurisdiction and Laches – The dismissal occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court – The petitioner failed to provide sufficient reason for the 21-year delay in seeking judicial review, which the Court found detrimental to the cause of justice – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, regarding the adverse impact of delay and laches on the exercise of writ jurisdiction [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – The Court dismisses the petition on grounds of substantial delay, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to directly challenge the original dismissal order – No compelling case made out for entitlement to compassionate allowance under the circumstances described [Para 10].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR for cheating and conspiracy lodged based on allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation by organizers of an education centre regarding the recognition of an educational course – Supreme Court guidelines on quashing FIRs discussed, specifically in the context of misrepresentations about university course accreditation – FIR not quashed, as allegations and investigation suggest prima facie case against petitioners – Allegations involve misrepresentation of NCTE recognition for ETT course offered by Singhania University, which led to the complainant’s employment opportunities being adversely affected – Investigations revealed that Singhania University was not recognized by NCTE to conduct the said course, contrary to what was advertised by the petitioners – Supreme Court’s guidelines from State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal referred to determine non-applicability of quashing the FIR – Petition dismissed on grounds that prima facie case exists based on allegations and evidences – Petitioners’ contention that FIR was an abuse of process not accepted as Singhania University’s non-recognition by NCTE for ETT course stands confirmed by NCTE and university admission forms. Dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Petitioners, fearing threats from private respondents after marrying against their wishes, seek protection under Article 21 – Court finds it appropriate to provide temporary police protection without adjudication on the merits of the threat perception – Police protection granted for one week, extendable on a day-to-day basis based on ground realities or upon request by petitioners – Petitioners restricted from attending high-risk activities to ensure their safety – [Paras 1-7].

Family Law – Right to Family Life – Despite threats, Court facilitates reconciliation efforts by allowing controlled family meetings – Family members of petitioner No. 1 permitted to meet under police supervision in civil attire – Meeting conditions set to ensure safety and decorum – [Para 8].

Procedure – Use of Court Orders – Court specifies that the order can be downloaded from the official website and used directly, ensuring swift implementation and compliance without the need for certified copies – [Para 10].

Order: Petition allowed to the extent mentioned above, providing temporary protection and arranging family meetings under supervision.

Termination & Reinstatement – Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 – Petitioner challenges Tribunal award granting reinstatement and back wages to respondent workman who was denied duty post-medical leave – Tribunal found the termination in violation of Industrial Disputes Act provisions – Held, termination was unjust, reinstatement ordered with 25% back wages – Fact of workman having secured employment elsewhere considered; on basis of his lower earnings at new job, tribunal deemed 25% back wages appropriate – [Paras 1-11]

Tribunal Findings – Evidence & Procedure – Tribunal relied on admissions from management and failure-report from conciliation proceedings; found management’s defense of workman abandoning job untrustworthy – Court upheld Tribunal’s approach and findings, affirming workman’s wrongful termination – [Paras 5-6, 10-11]

Compensation Modification – On appeal, High Court modifies relief; instead of reinstatement, grants lump-sum compensation considering the workman’s age, employment status, and management’s past conduct – Orders Rs. 3,30,000 compensation in lieu of reinstatement and continuity of service – [Para 12-14]

Property Dispute – Ownership and Encroachment – Appeal against First Appellate Court’s dismissal of suit – Trial court had decreed in favor of plaintiff, finding her the rightful owner in possession of the disputed property, an injunction was granted against encroachment claims by the defendants – Defendants contested, claiming encroachment on adjacent government property but failed to provide conclusive proof. [Paras 1-22]

Legal Admissions and Evidence – Defendants admitted plaintiff’s ownership in their written statement but contested the validity of ownership based on non-production of original sale deed and alleged encroachment – The appeal emphasized defendants’ failure to disprove plaintiff’s ownership or to substantiate claims of encroachment with credible evidence – Appeal restored trial court’s decree favoring the plaintiff. [Paras 11-14, 20-21]

Res Judicata – Suit not barred – Defendants unsuccessfully argued res judicata based on previous litigation against plaintiff’s husband which did not involve the plaintiff directly – Appellate court rejected res judicata application, aligning with plaintiff’s argument that judgments in personam affecting her husband did not bind her. [Paras 4, 16-17]

Decision:Appellate Judgment Reversed – High Court found First Appellate Court erred in its judgment – Recognized admissions by defendants and lack of substantial evidence against the plaintiff – Restored trial court’s judgment decreeing permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff. [Para 22]

Transfer of Criminal Complaint – Jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 – Petition filed by accused for transfer of complaint related to dishonoured cheque from Fazilka to Chandigarh, claiming that complainant’s bank account is maintained at Chandigarh – Controversy over actual maintenance location of the bank account whether at Chandigarh or Fazilka – Respondents provided certificate from Canara Bank, Muthianwali Branch, Fazilka confirming account maintenance at Fazilka – Court finds jurisdictional issue to be a matter of factual determination, inappropriate for decision at the stage of petition for transfer – Petition disposed of with liberty granted to petitioners to raise jurisdiction issue before trial court, which may decide the same at the outset after allowing parties to lead evidence if necessary. [Paras 1-7]

Second FIR – Prohibition – Petitioner seeks quashing of orders for registering a second FIR based on same transaction – First FIR registered by the bank involving allegations of financial misappropriation – Complaint by third party initiated subsequent proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Investigating officer had already considered the third party's complaint during the investigation of the first FIR – High Court references T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, emphasizes prohibition of multiple FIRs on same transaction – Orders for second FIR quashed [Paras 1-12].

Misuse of Process – Malicious Prosecution – High Court notes that permitting a second FIR would lead to abuse of judicial process and malicious prosecution – Upholds the principle that investigation and further evidence collection should be under the original FIR – Cites State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to support quashing orders that result in misuse of judicial process [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Application allowed – Orders dated 05.03.2016 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra and dated 21.01.2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra are quashed – Second FIR and all consequential proceedings set aside – Court reaffirms the prohibition against registering multiple FIRs for the same occurrence [Paras 11-12].
 

Cadre Restructuring – Judicial Review – Fundamental Rights - Petition challenging the revision of cadre strength in the BSF. Petitioner argued that the reduction in posts adversely affected promotional opportunities and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that the creation and abolition of posts fall within the exclusive domain of the employer and cannot be interfered with by the court unless there is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or manifest illegality [Paras 1-10].

Creation and Abolition of Posts – Domain of Employer - Supreme Court precedents confirm that the creation and abolition of posts are policy decisions of the employer, not subject to judicial interference unless arbitrary, mala fide, or unconstitutional. The court referenced ‘Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand’ and other cases, emphasizing limited judicial review in such administrative decisions [Paras 8-9].

Decision - Writ Petition Dismissed – The court found no manifest illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned notification. The reduction of posts did not substantively affect the petitioner’s rights, and the restructuring could potentially benefit her promotion prospects [Para 10].
 

Condonation of Delay – Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority – Petition filed under Article 226 challenging the Appellate Authority's refusal to condone delay in filing the appeal – Held, Limitation Act provisions not applicable to quasi-judicial authorities unless expressly provided – Appellate Authority correctly held it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Interpretation of Limitation Act – Applicability to Tribunals – Section 29(2) of Limitation Act applies only to suits, appeals, or applications filed in courts, not to quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals – Supreme Court judgments affirm non-application of Limitation Act to tribunals, reinforcing the Appellate Authority's decision [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Legislation – Constitutional Limits – Court cannot confer powers on authorities that are not legislatively granted – Judicial direction to condone delay amounts to unconstitutional judicial legislation – Established principle that courts cannot legislate or compel legislative action through judicial orders [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Held, Appellate Authority rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay due to lack of jurisdiction – No judicial order can compel the authority to consider condonation of delay without legislative provision [Paras 14-16].