Bail Application – Rejection by Trial Court – Appeal for release before High Court – Petitioner implicated under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act – Petitioner under preventive custody since 29th October 2021. [Para 1]

Prosecution Case – Death due to bullet injury – FIR registered based on statement by father of the deceased – CCTV footage and co-accused statements implicate petitioner – Co-accused Narender arrested and provided a disclosure statement implicating petitioner at the crime scene. [Para 2-2.2]

Court Observations – Challan presented and charges framed – Only 10 out of 51 prosecution witnesses examined – Petitioner's extended period in custody and slow trial progress noted – No evidence of potential tampering or witness influencing. [Para 5-8]

Decision – Grant of Bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail, subject to certain conditions – Observations made limited to the instant bail petition and not to affect the merits of the main case. [Para 10-14]

License Renewal - Requirement of fresh rent deed for license renewal - Petitioner sought quashing of letters requesting a fresh rent deed for license renewal - Petitioner held a license for a commission agent business since 2018 - Applied for renewal for a period of 3 years - Respondents requested a fresh rent deed along with the application - Petitioner argued that once a rent deed is executed, it remains valid - Mentioned ongoing litigation with the landlord - Court opined that the insistence on a fresh rent deed seems unfair when a tenant continues to occupy the premises beyond the stipulated period - Petitioner allowed to apply afresh for the license, and respondents to consider it within the law - No insistence on a fresh lease deed due to petitioner's continued possession of the premises. [Para 1-8]

Civil Writ Petition – Unjust Dismissal: The petition challenged the dismissal from service of the petitioner without adhering to the mandatory inquiry process under the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules. Discrimination alleged in comparison to another co-delinquent in a similar situation. [Para 2, 3]

Respondent’s Defense – Summary Dismissal: Respondent argued for the legitimacy of the summary dismissal under the rules, based on an audio clip implicating the petitioner in misconduct. [Para 4]

Legal Examination – Inquiry Dispensation: The court scrutinized the respondent's decision to dismiss without inquiry, focusing on the necessity of recording reasons for bypassing the regular inquiry process. [Para 7-14]

Equity Among Co-delinquents – Violation: Highlighted disparity in treatment between the petitioner and a similarly situated individual, emphasizing the principle of equality. [Para 21]

Verdict – Dismissal Order Overturned: The court overturned the dismissal for lack of recorded reasons for bypassing the inquiry, recognizing the deceased petitioner's rights to salary arrears and terminal benefits. [Para 25-31]

Conclusion – Posthumous Rights Recognition: Declared the removal invalid, ensuring the petitioner's entitlement to salary from termination until death and ordering the payment of terminal benefits to legal heirs. [Para 28-31]

Writ Petition & Subject Matter – Petition filed against the order by Commissioner, Revenue Division District Ujjain, which petitioners claim to be illegal under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 – Sought for quashment and other consequential reliefs. [Para 2]

Prior Proceedings & Remand – Initial writ petition allowed, influenced by the Amar Chand Vs. State of MP case – Decision set aside by the State's appeal, remanding the case back to writ court. [Para 3-4]

Special Leave Petition (SLP) – Petitioners' SLP was allowed, restoring the initial writ court's order and quashing the appellate order. [Para 5]

Review Petition & Finality – State of MP's review petition against the Apex Court's decision dismissed, confirming the initial writ petition’s relief for the petitioners. [Para 6]

Entitlement & Final Decision – Petitioners entitled to benefits under the Repeal Act, 1999 and name mutation in revenue records – The initial writ court's order dated 11.09.2019 restored, and impugned order quashed. [Para 7, 9]

Motor Accident Compensation – Appeal against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Appellant, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenges the award granting compensation to the claimants – Dispute related to the calculation of compensation. [Para 1-8]

Calculation of Compensation – Appellant argues that excessive compensation was awarded – Disagreement on the assessment of the deceased's income, future prospects, and personal expenses deduction – Reference to legal precedents for deduction and compensation calculations. [Para 9-12]

Apportionment of Compensation – Discussion on the distribution of compensation among the claimants – Decision to modify the apportionment in favor of the main sufferer, Ram Rati, the widow of the deceased. [Para 12]

Judgment Modification – The High Court partly accepts the appeal and modifies the award, adjusting the compensation and apportionment in favor of Ram Rati, the widow, beyond Rs. 4,31,200/-. Cross-objections filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/cross-objectors/claimants are dismissed. [Para 12]

Family Law – Divorce – Appeal against the rejection of a divorce petition – Appellant husband seeks dissolution of marriage based on cruelty and desertion – Parties married in 2009 and have lived separately for almost 14 years – Respondent wife filed multiple cases against appellant and initiated various litigation – Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage – Mediation attempts failed – No scope for reconciliation – Dissolution of the marriage granted – Marriage deemed to be beyond repair. [Para 15-26]

Criminal Revision – Challenge to framing of charge under Section 306 of IPC – Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to revise the trial court's decision – Court's primary task to evaluate the sufficiency of allegations for trial. [Para 1, 3]

Factual Background – Matrimonial Dispute and Suicide – Marriage between petitioner No. 3 and the deceased took place in 2014 – FIR registered against petitioners under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC following the deceased's suicide and initial Marg under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. [Para 2, 7]

Legal Arguments Raised – Petitioners question absence of abetment elements and cite apex court rulings to support their case – Respondents counter that the stage for questioning innocence is not yet appropriate. [Para 4, 5]

Abetment and Presumption – Presence of domestic discord and the occurrence of death in matrimonial home lead to presumption against petitioners – Court recognizes that abetment can be subtle and not solely constitute physical abuse. [Para 7, 8]

Scope and Decision – Court delineates that at this stage, only the existence of allegations matters for framing of charge – Petition is dismissed, allowing the trial to proceed. [Para 9]

Service Law - Employee Service – Counting of work-charge service for proficiency step-up – Dispute regarding whether service rendered on work-charge basis prior to regularization should be counted for granting proficiency step-up – Reference to relevant instructions dated 1.12.1988 (Annexure P-1) and clarificatory letter dated 1.9.1989 (Annexure P-2) – Contrasting views in previous judgments on whether such service should be counted. [Para 7-25]

Government Service - Counting of service for proficiency step-up - Petitioners sought the counting of ad-hoc/work-charge service towards proficiency step-up increments - Examination of relevant judgments - The judgments relied upon by the petitioners do not constitute binding precedent in the present case - Clarification from the State of Punjab explicitly states that service rendered on work-charge basis is not to be counted for grant of proficiency step-up - Consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court supports this position - Service on work-charge basis cannot be counted for the purpose of grant of benefits like increment or proficiency step-up upon completion of 8 and 18 years of service unless specific rules/policies permit it - Granting such benefits could lead to multiplicity of litigation and anomalous situations - The petition is dismissed. [Para 26-34]

Civil Appeal – Termination of service – Grant of back wages – Appellant-State challenges the judgment allowing the respondent's appeal against the termination of his services – Respondent's services were terminated without following proper procedure – Trial Court set aside the termination but declined to grant back wages – First Appellate Court granted back wages – Issue of entitlement to back wages for the period of absence from duty – No illegality or perversity in the First Appellate Court's judgment – No substantial question of law for determination – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-18]