Service Law - Promotion and Seniority in Employment – Cochin Port Trust – Contested Promotion of Senior OCIOA: The appeal contests the Single Bench's decision which favoured the respondent’s promotion to Senior OCIOA over the appellant. The bench considered the appellant's unauthorized absence as a break in service, affecting his seniority and eligibility for promotion. [Para 1, 4, 5, 12, 13]

Interpretation of Service Rules – Fundamental Rule 17A and CCS Pension Rule 27: The bench differentiated between unauthorized absence after sanctioned leave (appellant's situation) and standalone absence (FR 17A), impacting promotion and seniority. Rule 27 was interpreted to mean that unauthorized absence following sanctioned leave does not affect pension but impacts promotion and seniority. [Para 7, 12, 13]

Judicial Review – Unchallenged Administrative Order: The court observed that unchallenged administrative orders, like the one penalizing the appellant for unauthorized absence, have a binding effect. This formed the basis for upholding the Single Bench's decision affecting the appellant’s promotion and seniority. [Para 9, 12]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Bench's decision that set aside the appellant's promotion due to an unauthorized absence treated as a break in service. [Para 13]

Service Law - Promotion Eligibility Dispute – Unauthorized Absence Impact - Appeal against a Single Bench judgment concerning the promotion of an employee in Cochin Port Trust - Issue centered around the interpretation of unauthorized absence and its effect on seniority and promotion eligibility - Appellant argued that a brief unauthorized absence should not affect his promotion prospects - Respondent countered that the unauthorized absence disqualifies the appellant from promotion. [Paras 1-2, 4-13]

Interpretation of Service Rules - The court examined the applicability of Fundamental Rule 17A and Rule 27 of the CCS (Pension) Rules - These rules pertain to the consequences of unauthorized absence on service continuation and promotion eligibility - Fundamental Rule 17A addresses unauthorized absence resulting in an interruption in service, while Rule 27 deals with the forfeiture of past service due to an interruption. [Paras 8, 13]

Decision - The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Bench's decision - The court found no illegality or infirmity in the Single Bench’s interpretation of the Fundamental and CCS Pension Rules regarding unauthorized absence and its implications for seniority and promotion. [Para 13]

NDPS – Bail - Conspiracy and Possession of Contraband – Petitioners accused in connection with seizure of 728.42 grams of MDMA from the first accused – Alleged conspiracy among five accused, including financial transactions with an African nation for procuring the contraband. [Paras 2-3]

Arguments by Petitioners’ Counsel – Claim of innocence and false implication – Reliance solely on first accused's confession – Reference to Amal v. State of Kerala [B.A.No.2776/2023] arguing lack of direct link with the first accused – Petitioners ready to comply with any stringent bail conditions. [Para 5]

Opposition by Public Prosecutors – Emphasis on prima-facie evidence against petitioners – Financial transactions and communications linking petitioners with the crime – Mention of criminal antecedents and significant monetary transfers related to contraband – Invocation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act stressing non-grant of bail. [Para 6]

Legal Framework – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Stringent conditions for granting bail in NDPS cases – Requirement of 'reasonable grounds' to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail – Supreme Court interpretations in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] and State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122]. [Paras 7-10]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Based on the materials on record and the seriousness of accusations, the court finds no satisfaction in diluting the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Petitioners’ bail applications lack merit and are dismissed. [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law – Statutory Bail – Sections 167(2) CrPC and 36A(4) of the NDPS Act – Whether the accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC in light of the failure to complete the investigation within the prescribed time frame – Held, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail, as the final report has not been filed within 90 days, and the contraband involved was of intermediate quantity, punishable by a maximum of 10 years – [Paras 1-11].

Narcotic Drugs – Methamphetamine Seizure – Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – The chemical analysis report identified the contraband as methamphetamine instead of MDMA, resulting in the seizure of an intermediate quantity – The petitioner was arrested in possession of 37.080 grams, and the offence is punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years – [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Precedent – Indefeasible Right to Bail – Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410 – The court reiterated the principle that the right to statutory bail accrues if the final report is not filed within the statutory time limit – This right becomes indefeasible once the investigation exceeds 90 days – [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Bail Granted – The court directed that the petitioner be released on statutory bail, subject to conditions, including providing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties – The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer as required until the filing of the final report – [Para 11].

Appeal against judgment and decree involving partition and interpretation of a Will concerning property at C-316, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The dispute focuses on the barsati room and terrace atop the first floor of the property.

Land Dispute - Challenge to dismissal order under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, 1948 - Disputed lands and question of title - Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities - Necessity to raise the question of title before a competent civil court - Impugned order found to be in alignment with legal precedent. [Para 1-4]

Legal Mandate - Prohibition against redistributing or repartitioning disputed lands amongst estate holders after the finalization of the consolidation scheme - Remedy for redistribution through declaratory suit before competent Civil Court - Reference to 'Parkash Singh and Others Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and Others' case. [Para 3-4]

Dismissal of Writ Petition - Lack of merit in the petition - Reserving liberty for private respondents to pursue remedies as per legal precedent - Challenge to Annexure P-7 regarding auction of Grass becomes infructuous due to earlier court order. [Para 5-10]

Land Dispute - Challenge to dismissal order under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, 1948 - Disputed lands and question of title - Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities - Necessity to raise the question of title before a competent civil court - Impugned order found to be in alignment with legal precedent. [Para 1-4]

Legal Mandate - Prohibition against redistributing or repartitioning disputed lands amongst estate holders after the finalization of the consolidation scheme - Remedy for redistribution through declaratory suit before competent Civil Court - Reference to 'Parkash Singh and Others Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and Others' case. [Para 3-4]

Dismissal of Writ Petition - Lack of merit in the petition - Reserving liberty for private respondents to pursue remedies as per legal precedent - Challenge to Annexure P-7 regarding auction of Grass becomes infructuous due to earlier court order. [Para 5-10]

Regular Bail - Prolonged Custody - Right to Speedy Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Medical Reports - Fairness in Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution - Petitioner, a mother of a minor child, seeks regular bail in a murder case where she is accused of killing her husband due to an alleged illicit relationship. The prosecution's case relies on circumstantial evidence, with key witnesses not supporting their claims, and medical reports contradicting the prosecution's version. The judgment emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and the importance of ensuring fairness in the ongoing trial. The petitioner is granted regular bail based on the grounds of prolonged custody, without making any comments on the merits of the case to prevent prejudice to the ongoing trial.

Bail Petition for NDPS Act Offense - Nirmal Kaur's petition for regular bail in FIR No.177 dated 07.07.2021 under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana - Allegations of selling intoxicant powder and recovery of Alprazolam tablets and intoxicant powder from petitioner and her son [Paras 1-2].

Contention of False Implication - Petitioner's counsel argues false implication, non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act, absence of independent witnesses during search and seizure, petitioner being a first-time offender and in custody since 07.07.2021, delay in trial with 13 out of 17 witnesses examined - Cited judgments of the Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal and Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal [Para 3].

State's Opposition to Bail - State counsel opposes bail citing commercial quantity of contraband, but concedes petitioner's status as a first-time offender and duration of custody [Para 4].

Supreme Court Precedents on Bail - Reference to Supreme Court judgments in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal and Hasanujjaman & others Vs. The State of West Bengal emphasizing bail in cases with long custody and slow trial progress [Paras 6-7].

Grant of Bail Considering Circumstances - Court grants bail considering petitioner's long custody since 07.07.2021, status as a first-time offender, progress in trial with 13 of 17 witnesses examined, and application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Directed to furnish bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, report to police station monthly, and deposit an FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Trial Court [Paras 8-11].