Service Law – Pay Parity – Educational Qualification – Writ petition challenging different pay scales for graduate and non-graduate clerks – Petitioner, a non-graduate clerk, sought higher pay scale granted to graduate clerks – Held, educational qualification constitutes a valid basis for different pay scales – Classification between graduate and non-graduate clerks does not violate Articles 14 and 16 – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Legal Precedents – Higher Qualification Justifies Higher Pay – Held – Division Bench judgment upheld classification based on educational qualifications – Graduate clerks likely to discharge duties more efficiently than non-graduates – Higher pay scale recommended for graduate clerks by Shetty Commission – Non-graduates not entitled to same pay scale. [Para 5]

Burden of Proof – Onus on Claimant – Held – Heavy onus on claimant to show identical duties and responsibilities for pay parity – Petitioner failed to provide evidence that duties and recruitment rules of non-graduate clerks in subordinate courts were same as those in the High Court – Different governing rules for High Court and subordinate court clerks. [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No merit in claim for pay parity with non-graduate clerks in High Court – Petition dismissed as lacking merit. [Para 10]

Service Law – Selection Process – Compliance with Rules – Writ petition challenging annulment of appointment due to procedural violations – Appointment as Salesman annulled for not issuing notice to Assistant Registrar’s nominee – Held, selection made without issuing notice to Assistant Registrar’s nominee in violation of Rule 80 of 1963 Rules – Selection and appointment void for not complying with Rule 5 of 1997 Rules – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Method of Recruitment – Rule 5 of 1997 Rules – Held – Appointment to be made by Managing Committee on recommendation of Selection Committee comprising President, two Committee members, and Assistant Registrar or nominee – Procedure under Rule 80 of 1963 Rules mandates 7 days' notice for meetings – No notice to Assistant Registrar’s nominee renders selection invalid. [Para 8]

Judicial Reasoning – Procedural Compliance – Held – Failure to issue notice as required under Rule 80 vitiates selection process – Petitioner's appointment never approved as per Rule 5, thus void – Non-compliance with mandatory rules results in annulment of appointment – No ground for interference. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Writ petition dismissed due to procedural violations in the selection process – Annulment of appointment upheld – No merit in petition. [Para 11]

Land Law – Encroachment – Demarcation Reports – Writ petition against orders under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act – Petitioner's appeal dismissed without considering demarcation reports showing no encroachment – Held, authorities failed to consider demarcation reports revealing no encroachment on Panchayat land – Impugned orders set aside – Case remanded for fresh valid demarcation and a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing. [Paras 1-6]

Procedural Fairness – Consideration of Evidence – Held – Authorities must consider all relevant evidence, including demarcation reports – Absence of findings on whether construction was on purchased land or Panchayat land vitiates impugned orders – Orders unsustainable without consideration of key evidence. [Para 5]

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Case remanded to original authority for fresh demarcation and decision – Direction for completion within six months from receipt of court order – Speaking order to be passed after proper hearing and evidence presentation. [Para 6]

Service Law – Increase in Punishment – Show-Cause Notice – Writ petition challenging enhancement of punishment by the Appellate Authority – Petitioner, a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant, punished for absenteeism – Appellate Authority increased punishment without serving show-cause notice – Held, as per Rule 11, Appellate Authority must issue show-cause notice before enhancing penalty – Mandatory statutory requirement overlooked – Impugned order set aside, matter remitted for fresh decision. [Paras 1-7]

Mandatory Provisions – Rule 11 of Haryana Civil Services Rules – Held – Proviso to Rule 11 mandates issuing show-cause notice before increasing punishment – Mere appearance before Appellate Authority does not waive this requirement – Impugned order increasing penalty without show-cause notice unsustainable. [Para 6]

Decision – Order Set Aside – Writ petition allowed – Impugned order of enhanced punishment quashed – Appellate Authority directed to reconsider appeal after issuing show-cause notice and providing opportunity to petitioner – Fresh order to be passed within four months. [Para 7]

Criminal Law - Conviction - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Admissibility of Confession

Conviction of Main Accused - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC – Held: The trial court rightly convicted Simarjit Singh @ Tinku for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence, including his confession and recovery of the dead body. [Paras 25-27]

Role of Co-Accused - Insufficient Evidence for Murder – Analysis – Held: No material evidence against Sonu Masih regarding his involvement in the murder. His conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside, but his conviction under Section 201 IPC is upheld for aiding in the disposal of the dead body. [Paras 28-34]

Admissibility of Confession - Police Custody – Consideration – Held: Confession made to a police officer is inadmissible unless it leads to the discovery of a fact. Only the portion of the statement leading to the recovery of the spade (used for burying the body) is admissible against Sonu Masih. [Paras 29-31]

Decision: The appeal by Simarjit Singh @ Tinku is dismissed, upholding his conviction and sentence. The appeal by Sonu Masih is partly allowed; his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside, but his conviction under Section 201 IPC is maintained. [Paras 35-37]

Presumption of Truth in Revenue Records – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Writ petition challenging the appellate authority's decision that overturned the Collector's order declaring the petitioner and proforma respondents as owners of disputed land – The appellate authority found no evidence to substantiate the claim of possession prior to 26.01.1950 – Presumption of truth attached to revenue records upheld – Petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the presumption despite multiple opportunities – Held, no illegality or perversity in the appellate authority's order – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Role of Revenue Records in Establishing Ownership – Analysis – The Court emphasized the importance of revenue records in establishing ownership and possession – The petitioner's inability to produce documents to counter the revenue records led to the dismissal of the petition – Revenue records showed the land was mutated in favor of the Gram Panchayat in 1955 and remained so. [Para 6]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the lack of documentary evidence rebutting the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records – The appellate authority's decision was upheld as it was found to be neither illegal nor perverse. [Para 6]

Fiscal Legislation – Constitutional Validity – Sabka Vishwas Scheme – Writ petition challenging Sections 124(2) and 130(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 as ultra vires and unconstitutional – Provisions precluding refund of excess deposits under the scheme – Scheme aimed at reducing legacy litigation and encouraging voluntary disclosure of evaded taxes – Held, provisions do not violate Article 14 and are aligned with legislative intent to settle disputes without creating new liabilities – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Legislative Objective – Settlement of Legacy Disputes – Held – Sabka Vishwas Scheme aimed at liquidating legacy disputes by encouraging voluntary disclosure and reducing litigation – Scheme precludes refund of excess amounts to ensure finality and simplicity – Optional nature of scheme provides no compulsion for taxpayers to opt in – Provisions aligned with legislative intent and not discriminatory. [Para 16]

Judicial Reasoning – Equality in Fiscal Legislation – Held – Fiscal statutes allow for broad classification based on pragmatic and economic considerations – Provisions ensuring no refund of excess deposits do not create hostile discrimination – Legislative intent to end disputes without generating liabilities justified – Optional participation ensures no violation of Article 14. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Constitutional challenge to Sections 124(2) and 130(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 dismissed – Provisions upheld as valid and consistent with legislative objectives – No merit in the petition. [Para 17]

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]