Pensionary Benefits - Delay in Release - Liability - Administrative Department vs. Treasury Department - Interest Award - The petitioner, retired on 30.04.2014, faced delays in receiving pensionary benefits, with payments ranging from three and a half to eleven months late. The court held the administrative department liable for delays in releasing pensionary benefits, rejecting the argument that the treasury department, as an agent of the administrative department, was responsible for the delays. Interest awarded for the delay in payment of GPF and gratuity. [Paras 1, 2, 5]

Responsibility for Timely Payment - Administrative Duty - Agent Relationship - The court emphasized that the duty to make timely payment of retiral benefits lies with the administrative department, not the treasury. The treasury acts as an agent and does not independently authorize pensionary benefits. Delays attributed to the treasury do not absolve the administrative department of liability for interest on delayed payments. [Paras 5]

Interest on Delayed Pensionary Benefits - Legal Precedent - A.S. Randhawa Case - The court referenced the Full Bench decision in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, which established that delays exceeding three months in releasing pensionary benefits, without valid justification, entitle the retiree to interest. This principle was applied to award interest to the petitioner. [Paras 6, 7]

Decision - Calculation and Payment of Interest - Compliance Timeline - The court directed the respondents to calculate the interest due on the delayed payment of GPF and gratuity at 9% per annum from the date the amounts became due until payment. The respondents were given two months to calculate the interest and one month thereafter to release the calculated interest to the petitioner. [Paras 8, 9]

Child Welfare - Repatriation of Children - Jurisdiction of Child Welfare Committee - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Income Tax Act, 1962 - Arya Anathalaya, registered and operating in Ferozepur, caring for children from Jharkhand, challenged the directive to repatriate these children. Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Child Welfare Committee to repatriate children to their home districts after consultation with the concerned Child Welfare Committees of Jharkhand, emphasizing the best interest of the children. [Paras 13-15]

Procedure - Children's Home Capacity - Consultation Requirement - Legal Compliance - The Court held that the repatriation directive must be implemented in a phased manner, ensuring coordination with the concerned Child Welfare Committees in Jharkhand. It highlighted the need to respect procedural requirements and the capacity constraints of the Anathalaya. [Paras 13-15]

Decision - Phased Repatriation - Adequate Notice and Coordination - The directive to repatriate children was upheld but ordered to be implemented in a phased manner with proper consultation. The State's agreement to afford sufficient time for repatriation addressed the petitioner's concerns. [Paras 16-19]

Right to Information - Public Authority - Definition - SGPC, a statutory body established under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, is considered a 'public authority' under the RTI Act, 2005. The institutions, though separate legal entities, are offshoots of the SGPC, managed by SGPC and thus also fall under the RTI Act - Petition dismissed​​.

Service Law - Educational Institutions under SGPC - Institutions established and controlled by SGPC, whether receiving government aid or not, are considered public authorities under the RTI Act. SGPC's claim of non-applicability of the RTI Act to unaided minority institutions rejected - Transparency and accountability upheld​​.

Decision - SGPC and Subsidiaries under RTI Act - SGPC and its managed institutions are deemed public authorities under the RTI Act. The plea that these institutions are independent and thus exempt from RTI Act is dismissed. Information must be provided as requested under the RTI Act - Petition dismissed​​.

Writ Petition - Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-Law - Senior Citizen's Property - Jurisdiction of Civil Court Barred - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Section 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Petitioner, a senior citizen, sought eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his house, claiming absolute ownership through a registered sale deed. The District Magistrate dismissed the application, deeming the property ancestral and advising recourse to civil court. Held, the District Magistrate failed to address relevant facts and the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 27 of the 2007 Act. Order set aside, matter remanded for fresh consideration. [Paras 7-10]

Cryptic and Non-Speaking Order - Requirement of Reasoned Decision - Senior Citizen's Rights - The Court observed that the District Magistrate's order was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking discussion on key facts and legal provisions. Directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the application with a reasoned order, ensuring adherence to statutory mandates. [Paras 6-10]

Decision - Remand for Fresh Consideration - Protection of Senior Citizens - The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded to the District Magistrate for a fresh decision. The petitioner was allowed to supplement his application with additional pleadings and documents. The District Magistrate was instructed to decide the matter expeditiously, considering the senior citizen's claims under the 2007 Act. [Paras 11-12]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Bona Fide Need - Eviction Order - Mortgage Defense - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Tenant claimed the property was mortgaged to him, terminating the landlord-tenant relationship, and possession could only be reclaimed through redemption. Court held that the tenant could not use the mortgage deed as a defense after previously denying its validity. Eviction on grounds of bona fide need upheld. [Paras 22-24]

Eviction Petition - Tenant's Inconsistent Stance - Sham Mortgage Deed - Applicability of Landlord-Tenant Law - Tenant initially denied the validity of the mortgage deed and claimed tenant status. Court held tenant's inconsistent stance invalidated his mortgage defense. The eviction petition was valid as the landlord-tenant relationship continued to exist. [Paras 22-23]

Decision - Dismissal of Revision Petition - Affirmation of Eviction Order - The Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the eviction order. The tenant's claim of a mortgage was contradicted by his earlier admissions and actions, which the court interpreted as extinguishing the right to redeem under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [Para 24-25]

Writ Petition - Forfeiture of Earnest Money - Clerical Error in E-auction Bid - Unjust Enrichment - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner submitted a price bid of Rs. 17,900 per quintal instead of Rs. 1,790 per quintal due to a clerical error. Authorities were immediately informed but did not permit rectification, leading to cancellation of allocation and forfeiture of earnest money. Held, there was no wilful default by the petitioner. Retention of earnest money by FCI amounted to unjust enrichment. Directed refund of Rs. 17,90,000 to the petitioner. [Paras 8-10]

Bid Rectification - Clerical Error - Lack of Provision in Tender Conditions - Tender Process - The Court held that despite the absence of a provision for downward revision of bids in the Model Tender Form (MTF), the authorities should have exercised their discretion to correct an apparent accidental error. Petitioner's immediate notification of the error demonstrated the lack of intent to bid at the erroneous higher rate. [Paras 6-9]

Decision - Refund of Forfeited Earnest Money - Just and Equitable Relief - The Court quashed the impugned letters rejecting the petitioner's request for bid rectification and forfeiture of earnest money. Ordered FCI to refund the forfeited amount, acknowledging that the petitioner was a victim of a clerical error and not at fault. [Para 10]

Service Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Rule 9 of Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment and Appeal Regulations, 1971 - Imposition of Penalty Without Dissent or Further Inquiry - The petitioner, a Senior Executive Engineer, was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, yet the punishing authority imposed a major penalty without recording any reasons or a dissenting note - Held, the action violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory regulations - Orders imposing penalty quashed - Petition allowed. [Paras 10, 12, 13]

Non-Speaking Orders and Adverse Civil Consequences - Requirement for Reasoned Orders - Any order entailing adverse civil consequences must be a self-speaking order justifying the decision taken - The impugned order imposing the penalty was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking the required justification - The appellate order also failed to address the grounds raised in the appeal, rendering it infirm. [Paras 12, 13]

Court’s Reasoning - Procedural Compliance and Fair Hearing - The punishing authority did not follow the procedure outlined in Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(2) of the 1971 Regulations, which mandates recording reasons for any disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings or remitting the case for further inquiry - Failure to provide a fair hearing and reasoned order constituted a breach of procedural compliance and fairness. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.08.2015 and 18.11.2016 imposing the major penalty on the petitioner are quashed. All consequential benefits arising from the quashing of these orders are to be released to the petitioner forthwith. Given the petitioner's superannuation and the admission by the respondent-Corporation that no financial loss was caused, no liberty is granted to proceed afresh in the matter.

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Conflict of Interest – Petitioner challenged the appointment of the arbitrator on grounds of bias and ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule of the Act – Court held that if an arbitrator falls under any category in the Seventh Schedule, he/she becomes de jure unable to perform functions – Grounds raising justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality to be raised before the arbitrator under Section 13 – In the present case, the Managing Director’s recommendation and the government’s appointment did not violate statutory requirements – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-45].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Sole Arbitrator’s appointment upheld – The Court found no inherent bias or procedural lapses in the arbitrator’s appointment – Reaffirmed the role of the government in appointing an arbitrator as per the agreement, independent of the Managing Director’s recommendation [Paras 44-46].

Criminal Law - Medical Negligence - Quashing of Criminal Complaint and Summoning Order –Criminal Appeal against summoning order for offense under Section 304-A IPC – Allegation of medical negligence against appellant in the treatment of respondent's wife – Contention that summoning order was passed without obtaining necessary medical opinion from a government doctor as mandated by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew’s case – Held, summoning order set aside – Directions issued for the constitution of a Medical Board to determine negligence. [Paras 1-25]

Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Analysis –Held – Both the lower courts failed to follow the Supreme Court's mandate in Jacob Mathew's case, which requires obtaining a prima facie medical opinion from a government doctor before initiating criminal proceedings in medical negligence cases – Absence of such compliance necessitated the quashing of the summoning order. [Para 26]

Role of Expert Medical Opinion –Held – The necessity of obtaining an expert medical opinion prior to summoning is crucial to avoid frivolous prosecutions and ensure a fair trial – The Medical Board's assessment will provide an impartial evaluation of the alleged negligence. [Para 19-21]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order –The summoning order against Dr. Kamal Jeet Singh is set aside due to non-compliance with the prerequisite of expert medical opinion – Case remanded for the constitution of a Medical Board to assess the alleged negligence and report within a specified timeframe – Fresh order to be passed by JMIC based on the Medical Board's findings. [Para 26-28]