Family Pension – Dependency and Entitlement – Petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s order directing the grant of family pension to the respondent – Contention that respondent was not dependent on her father at the time of his death, hence not entitled to family pension – High Court held that dependency is a crucial factor and mere divorce after the pensioner’s death does not automatically entitle a daughter to family pension [Paras 1-14].

Applicability of OM and Circulars – Petitioners argued OM dated September 11, 2013 not applicable as respondent’s divorce occurred after the pensioner’s death – High Court emphasized that each case must be assessed on its merits, particularly the aspect of dependency at the time of pensioner’s death [Paras 9-12].

Precedents and Judicial Interpretation – The Court distinguished the present case from Mamata Ghosh’s case, highlighting differences in factual matrix and dependency criteria – Reiterated that orders in similar cases are not automatically applicable without factual similarity [Paras 6, 9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Order of the Tribunal set aside – Family pension claim rejected due to lack of dependency evidence at the time of the pensioner’s death – Directions for future claims to meticulously assess dependency and apply relevant circulars and Oms appropriately [Paras 13-15].

Bail Application – Opportunity to Present Case – Violation of Section 45 PMLA – Directorate of Enforcement (ED) contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to oppose the bail application – Vacation Judge denied oral prayer for stay of bail – Failure to fulfill mandatory twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA [Para 2(i), 5]. 

Vicarious Liability – Political Party Involvement – ED argued that the respondent had a vicarious liability under Section 70 PMLA, alleging that proceeds of crime were used for the Aam Aadmi Party’s election campaign in Goa – Vacation Judge failed to consider this aspect [Paras 5.4, 16]. 

Mala Fide Intent – Timing of Arrest – Vacation Judge found malafide in the timing of the ED’s actions – High Court observed that the judgment dated 09.04.2024 by Co-ordinate Bench had cleared ED of mala fide intentions [Para 15]. 

Judicial Discipline – Previous Findings – High Court noted that the Vacation Judge should have adhered to findings of the Co-ordinate Bench – Judgment dated 09.04.2024 had already addressed the issues considered by the Vacation Judge [Para 15]. 

Decision: Stay Application allowed – Operation of the Impugned Order stayed – Bail order set aside, and matter referred to Roster Bench for further consideration [Para 22].

Service Recognition – Cancellation of Recognition – Petitioner’s service as Assistant Teacher initially recognized but later canceled without proper notice or enquiry – Court held cancellation invalid due to procedural deficiencies and prior court orders recognizing service – Cancellation order set aside – Respondents directed to reassess recognition considering petitioner’s qualifications and prior recognition orders [Paras 1-21].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Notice and Enquiry – Recognition of petitioner’s service canceled without issuing notice or conducting proper enquiry – High Court emphasized requirement of notice and enquiry before cancellation – Prior court order affirming recognition not appealed, thus attaining finality – Cancellation held invalid [Paras 12-18].

Service Conditions – Recognition as Trained Teacher – Petitioner’s service recognized as trained teacher from date of appointment – Cancellation without enquiry into qualifications and continuous service – Court directed reassessment of petitioner’s service as trained teacher, considering qualifications and prior recognition [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Order canceling recognition of petitioner’s service set aside – Director, Secondary Education directed to reassess petitioner’s service as trained teacher and determine arrears payable in five monthly installments, considering qualifications and prior recognition orders [Paras 19-21].
 

Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR and charge-sheet filed under multiple sections of IPC – Alleged that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant were a counter-blast to civil disputes – Court held FIR and charge-sheet to be an abuse of process, emphasizing non-compliance with procedural requirements for Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications, particularly absence of mandatory affidavit and prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 9-18].

Procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Statutory obligation for supporting affidavit and prior complaints – Court relied on Supreme Court precedents in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, underscoring mandatory requirements for applications under Section 156(3) – Highlighted misuse of criminal process for settling civil disputes and reiterated the necessity for judicial diligence in verifying such applications [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Revision applications allowed – FIR and charge-sheet quashed – Court mandated strict adherence to procedural requirements for invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring applications are substantiated with affidavits and prior complaints [Paras 18-21].
 

Motor Vehicles – Compensation for Injuries – Appellant (insurance company) challenged the award of compensation for injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,77,130/- with 9% p.a. interest – Appellant contended the driver did not have a valid license to drive a light motor transport vehicle – High Court held that the driver had a valid license for light motor non-transport vehicle and no evidence showed the owner had knowledge of any license issues – Tribunal’s decision upheld [Paras 1-16].

Driving License – Validity and Insurance Liability – Ex.B-2 established the driver had a valid license – No evidence of owner’s knowledge of any invalidity – Insurance company’s argument dismissed based on absence of proof of owner’s knowledge of license issue [Para 13].

Interest on Compensation – Tribunal awarded 9% p.a. interest on compensation amount – Appellant sought modification citing lower bank interest rates at the time – High Court found no merit in this argument and upheld Tribunal’s decision [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court confirmed the award and decree by the Tribunal – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, are closed [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Cruelty – Appeal by husband and father-in-law against their conviction for murder (Section 302/34 IPC) and cruelty (Section 498-A IPC) – Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in presence of police and doctor – Appellate court evaluates evidence, including inconsistencies in witness statements and procedural irregularities – Major doubts raised about authenticity of dying declaration due to 100% burn injuries and lack of immediate police recording at matrimonial home – No recovery of burnt articles at the scene – Independent witnesses not examined – Appellants acquitted giving benefit of doubt [Paras 1-54].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Deceased’s statement recorded by police officer and doctor at hospital – Witnesses state victim was conscious and capable of giving statement despite 100% burns – Postmortem report and doctor’s testimony conflict with claim of victim’s capacity to make statement – High Court questions veracity of dying declaration due to procedural lapses and inconsistencies in testimonies [Paras 7-10, 31-35].

Delayed FIR – Procedural Irregularities – FIR not sent immediately – Delays and absence of independent witness testimonies – Failure to record statement at matrimonial home questioned – Raises suspicion about manipulation of dying declaration – Benefit of doubt extended to appellants [Paras 33-44].

Decision – Criminal Appeals Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding authenticity of evidence and procedural lapses – Ordered release of appellants if not required in any other case [Para 54-56].
 

Execution of Decree – Third Party Rights – Application of Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – The respondent filed an application to execute a preliminary decree for partition. The appellants, not party to the original suit, sought protection of possession under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. The Trial Court dismissed their application, a decision upheld by the Appellate Court. The High Court, considering substantial questions of law, remitted the matter to the Trial Court for proper adjudication after framing issues and allowing evidence [Paras 1-13].

Maintainability of Application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – The court addressed whether a third party can seek relief under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC before losing possession. Emphasizing procedural requirements, the court noted the necessity of framing issues and leading evidence to adjudicate rights [Paras 3-9].

Remand for Proper Adjudication – The court remanded the matter to the Trial Court to adjudicate the application filed by the appellants under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, ensuring proper procedural compliance [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with procedural rules, ensuring issues are framed and evidence is led before deciding the application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC [Paras 12-15].

Service Law – Approval as SACT-II – Petitioners engaged as Accompanists (Tabalchi) in Music Department, claim status under SACT-II as per Memo dated 23.12.2019 – Names not uploaded by College Authority within deadline – College Authority’s failure admitted – Petitioners approached Court for necessary directions – State’s rejection of petitioners’ claims on grounds of non-teaching position and missed deadline deemed arbitrary and against principles of natural justice [Paras 1-13, 20-26].

Mandamus – Legal Right and Judicial Review – Petitioners possess legal right for mandamus due to unequal treatment by State Authority – Approval of similarly situated persons in other colleges under SACT-II category highlighted – College Authority’s admission of failure to upload names within deadline noted – Procedural lapses by College Authority should not prejudice petitioners’ rights – Court emphasizes need for equitable treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 14-19, 27-30].

Policy Decision – Implementation and Exceptions – Court recognizes State’s policy to restructure service conditions and other benefits for teachers – Finds that failure to upload names within specific time frame due to College Authority’s error does not nullify petitioners’ entitlement to benefits – Inclusion of petitioners as SACT-II does not violate policy decision but aligns with intent to regularize service conditions of similarly situated individuals [Paras 22-26, 28-30].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Impugned decision of State Authority dated 24.08.2022 set aside – State directed to approve petitioners as State Aided College Teachers (SACT-II) as per Memo dated 23.12.2019 – Decision to be taken within eight weeks from communication of order – Order to be implemented and communicated to petitioners’ College Authorities within two weeks thereafter [Para 28-34].
 

Reappointment of Vice Chancellor – Requirement of Fresh Selection Process – Petitioners challenge reappointment of respondent No. 6 without fresh selection process – High Court affirms necessity of adhering to UGC regulations – Reappointment without fresh process deemed permissible only if regulations specifically allow it – Precedents from Supreme Court applied [Paras 18-20].

Violation of UGC Regulations – Composition of Search Committee – Initial appointment and subsequent reappointment of respondent No. 6 challenged for non-compliance with UGC Regulations – Search Committee lacked UGC Chairman’s nominee – High Court holds appointments void ab initio due to non-compliance with mandatory regulations – Central legislation prevails over state legislation in case of conflict [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held: Initial appointment and subsequent reappointment of respondent No. 6 as Vice Chancellor of Dr. YSR Horticulture University declared void ab initio – Quo warranto issued – Reappointments quashed – No order as to costs [Para 25].