Taxation Law – Detention of Goods – E-Way Bill Compliance – Petition challenging penalty imposed under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 – Goods detained due to incomplete Part-B of the E-Way bill – Intention to evade tax immaterial for imposing penalty under Section 129 – Authorities empowered to detain goods and demand tax and penalty if documents are not in compliance – Petition dismissed. [Para 4-6, 9-10]

Compliance Requirements – Analysis – Goods transported with incomplete E-Way bill – Authorities detained goods under Section 129(1) – Penalty imposed under Section 129 – Appeal against penalty dismissed – Authorities not required to establish intent to evade tax for imposing penalty under Section 129 – Petitioner's claim of no intent to evade tax irrelevant – Petition dismissed for lack of merit. [Para 10]

Decision – Penalty and Tax Payment – Orders imposing penalty upheld – Petitioner's payment under Section 129(3) concluded proceedings – Petition dismissed. [Para 11-12]

Landlord-Tenant Law – Material Impairment – Section 13(2)(iii) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 – Petitioner sought eviction for non-payment of rent, impairment in value and utility, and nuisance – Rent Controller allowed eviction for material impairment – Appellate Authority dismissed petition – Tenant admitted to opening door and windows without consent – Mere additions or alterations by tenant not necessarily material impairment – No evidence of actual impairment – Findings of Appellate Authority upheld – Petition dismissed. [Para 11]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Examination of evidence by High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Rent Act confined to checking legal compliance – Pure findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse or opposed to evidence – Appellate Authority's findings based on proper appreciation of evidence – No procedural irregularity or illegality found – Petition dismissed. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Orders of Appellate Authority Upheld – No evidence of material impairment in value or utility due to tenant's actions – Findings of fact by lower authorities upheld – Revision petition dismissed. [Para 11-13]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption under Section 139 – Acquittal – Special Leave to Appeal – The application sought special leave to appeal against the acquittal judgment, arguing that the presumption under Section 139 should apply once the signature on the cheque is admitted. Held: The complainant failed to prove the contentions in the complaint. Without proving the transaction's basis, the presumption under Section 139 does not arise. Special leave to appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Evidence – Proof of Transaction – The complainant failed to produce any receipt for the tiles or the carbon copy of the bills mentioned in the complaint. The delivery person, Mithu, who allegedly delivered the tiles, was also not examined. These failures led to the conclusion that the complainant did not prove the transaction, and thus the presumption under Section 139 did not apply. [Paras 4-9]

Application of Precedent – The Court examined the judgment cited by the complainant's counsel, but found it inapplicable to the present case as the complainant did not prove the contentions of the complaint, unlike in the cited case where only the nature of the transaction and source of funds were in question. [Paras 7-9]

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – The impugned judgment was found to be well-reasoned, and there was no illegality in the findings of the trial court. The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. [Paras 10-11]

Land Law - Eviction - Lawful Title and Cultivating Rights – Held, the petitioner did not hold any lawful title or lawful cultivating rights over the suit land, except as a lessee or gair marusi. Consequently, no valid question of title ever arose, nor was it required to be determined by the statutory authority. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Estoppel - Reserved Liberty Unavailed – Held, the liberty reserved in the petitioner through a previous court decision remained unavailed. The petitioner continued to challenge the eviction order without utilizing the reserved liberty. Hence, the petitioner is estopped from contending for further liberty to contest any valid or lawful title over the suit land. [Para 6]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition – The court found no merit in the petition. The impugned orders are affirmed and maintained. [Para 8]

Representing Advocates:

Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner

Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana

S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4

Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 5

Karan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 to 8

Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment – Regular Second Appeal against order of lower appellate court setting aside recovery of excess amount paid to employee – Employee’s salary wrongly fixed by the department in 1996, error discovered in 2011, recovery sought – Held that recovery from employee impermissible when no fraud or misrepresentation is involved and when benefits were enjoyed for more than five years – Government instructions dated 05.10.2012 not applicable retrospectively.

Recovery of Excess Payment - Conditions – Analysis – Held – Based on Supreme Court’s precedents, recovery of excess payments is impermissible under specific conditions, including where benefits were drawn for an extended period, and no fault is attributable to the employee. Reiterated that retrospective application of government instructions violates settled legal principles. [Para 10-11, 13]

Decision – Recovery of Excess Payment from Employee – Court dismissed the state’s appeal and upheld the lower appellate court’s decision, preventing the recovery of excess payment from the respondent. It emphasized adherence to equitable principles and the non-retrospective application of new government instructions. [Para 16]

Civil Service Law - Regularization of Service - Seniority List vs. Log Book - Appeal challenging the de-regularization of service by relying on the seniority list over a log book. Appellant claimed an earlier date of appointment based on the log book. Held that the log book, being in the custody of the employee and used only for recording certain facts, cannot supersede the seniority list, which is a more reliable and official document. Seniority list, which existed prior to the regularization order, is preferred for determining seniority. Regular Second Appeal dismissed. [Paras 5-20]

Evidence Law - Reliability of Documents - Log book not considered a valid document to prove the date of appointment in preference to other official records. Seniority list given precedence over the log book due to its authenticity and existence prior to the regularization order. Held, log book can only be used as corroborative material, not primary evidence. [Paras 14-15]

Civil Procedure - Non-speaking Orders - Impugned order of de-regularization not considered non-speaking as it provided reasons for de-regularization based on the seniority list. Held, sufficient reasoning was given, reflecting due application of mind. [Para 17]

Decision - Appeal dismissed as no perversity or error in the findings of the lower courts regarding the reliance on the seniority list over the log book. The appellant's contentions were not supported by substantial evidence. Regular Second Appeal dismissed. [Para 20]

Service Law – Discrimination in Disciplinary Proceedings – Writ petition challenging discriminatory punishment in disciplinary proceedings – Petitioner awarded stoppage of one annual increment with future effect – Co-delinquent let off without punishment – Held, similar charges necessitate similar treatment – Discriminatory treatment violates Article 14 – Punishment against petitioner quashed – Authorities directed to pass fresh orders treating petitioner at par with co-delinquent. [Paras 1-15]

Equality before Law – Discrimination and Arbitrariness – Legal Propositions Culled out – Held – (i) Delinquent employees facing similar charges must be treated equally, (ii) Discriminatory treatment forbidden by Article 14, (iii) Arbitrary actions denying equality must be quashed, (iv) Negligence cannot be deemed more culpable than embezzlement – Petitioner deserves parity in treatment with similarly situated co-delinquent. [Para 13]

Precedents – Similar Treatment for Similar Charges – Held – In cases involving embezzlement, negligence is less culpable – Disparity in punishment unjustified – Petitioner’s punishment of stoppage of increment unsustainable when co-delinquent let off – Prior cases upholding equality in disciplinary actions cited. [Para 8-12]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Quashing of Punishment Order – Court quashes impugned order of punishment against petitioner – Directs authorities to issue fresh orders in line with observations – Orders to be issued within eight weeks. [Paras 14-15]

Service Law – Definition of Government Schools – Recruitment Criteria – Writ petitions challenging rejection of candidature for not possessing requisite experience in Central/State Government Schools – Petitioners teaching in Adarsh Schools run by Punjab Education Development Board (an autonomous statutory body) – Held, Adarsh Schools do not fall within definition of Government Schools – Experience in Adarsh Schools not considered equivalent to experience in Central/State Government Schools as per recruitment notice – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-16]

Autonomous Bodies – Definition and Scope – Held – Punjab Education Development Board established as an autonomous body under the 1998 Act – Autonomous bodies set up to discharge functions outside government setup for independence and flexibility – Such bodies not equivalent to Central/State Government for recruitment purposes. [Para 12]

Recruitment Notice – Experience Requirement – Held – Recruitment notice clearly requires experience as Primary School Teacher in Central/State Government Schools – Adarsh Schools, despite being under Board supervision, are not classified as government schools – Petitioners' rejection based on this criterion justified. [Para 13]

Article 12 and 311 of the Constitution – Applicability – Held – Article 12 definition of 'State' includes government bodies but in different context – Employees of autonomous bodies not entitled to same benefits as civil servants under Article 311 – Adarsh Schools’ employees not considered members of civil service or holding civil posts under the State. [Paras 14-15]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners' experience in Adarsh Schools does not meet recruitment criteria for Government Schools – Writ petitions dismissed for lack of merit – Pending applications also disposed of. [Paras 16-17]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Mandamus – Pay Scale and Regularization – Petitioners working as Balsevikas on a contractual basis with a meagre salary, sought issuance of a writ directing the respondents to grant them the minimum of regular pay scale and consider their regularization similar to their counterparts in other districts. Held, the Haryana State Council of Child Welfare falls within the ambit of authority under Article 226 and is amenable to writ jurisdiction. Discrimination against the petitioners by denying them the benefits granted to their counterparts is not justified. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioners the minimum of regular pay scale along with dearness allowance and consider their regularization. Petition disposed of. [Paras 1-9]

Employment Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – The Court observed that the petitioners, who have been working for long periods (10-25 years) on a contractual basis, should not be discriminated against compared to their counterparts in other districts who have been regularized and granted benefits. Held, following the Supreme Court judgment in Jagjit Singh's case, temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale along with dearness allowance. [Paras 7-9]

Decision:

Petition disposed of with a direction to respondents to pay the petitioners minimum of the regular pay scale along with dearness allowance and to consider their case for regularization. Arrears are restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the order. The entire exercise is to be completed within four months. [Para 9]