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]

Service Law – Dismissal and Reinstatement – Salary and Allowances – Petitioner working as constable suspended due to criminal charges – Dismissed upon conviction – Acquitted and reinstated – Order treating period from dismissal to reinstatement as “dies non” challenged – Held, detention due to criminal charge considered beyond control of employee – Non-working period does not invite principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ – Full salary and allowances granted upon reinstatement – Petition allowed. [Para 7]

Suspension Period – Analysis – Petitioner acquitted and reinstated without departmental proceedings – Period of absence treated as duty – Supreme Court precedents support full pay and allowances upon reinstatement after acquittal – Orders denying benefits for period under dismissal unsustainable – Respondents directed to calculate and release salary and allowances. [Para 7-10]

Decision – Order Treating Period as “Dies Non” – Order treating period from dismissal to reinstatement as “dies non” quashed – Petitioner entitled to salary and allowances for period from dismissal to reinstatement – Authorities directed to consider suspension period as well – Petition allowed. [Para 10-13]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Scope of Enquiry – Defendant sought rejection of plaint contending absence of cause of action and lack of pleadings regarding existence of HUF and ancestral property – Held: At the stage of Order VII Rule 11, Court must confine itself strictly to averments in the plaint and cannot examine defence, merits, or disputed questions of law or fact – If plaint discloses a bundle of facts which, if proved, may entitle plaintiff to relief, rejection is impermissible [Paras 5–6].

Partition Suit – Claim Based on Will – Alternative Plea of HUF Property – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Plaintiffs primarily sought relief on basis of registered Will dated 01.03.2017 and only in the alternative claimed partition as coparcenary/HUF property – Objection raised that pleadings regarding HUF were insufficient – Held: Acceptance of objection to alternative plea would amount to partial rejection of plaint, which is impermissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Suit must proceed as a whole [Para 7].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partial Rejection – Not Permissible – Reiterating settled law that plaint cannot be dissected and rejected in parts under Order VII Rule 11 – If plaint survives on any cause of action, rejection of plaint in entirety is not warranted – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent in Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao v. Madan Mohan Rao [Para 7].

Will – Joint Will – Interpretation – Not Decidable at Threshold – Contention that joint Will resulted in property becoming self-acquired property of surviving testator raised by defendant – Held: Determination of nature, intent, and legal effect of a joint Will involves complicated questions of law and fact and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 8].

Probate Proceedings – Pendency – Effect on Order VII Rule 11 Application – Probate proceedings in respect of Will pending and plaintiffs had sought impleadment therein – Held: Court should not prejudge validity or effect of Will while considering application for rejection of plaint [Para 9].

Coparcenary Rights – Grandchildren – Lifetime of Father – Objection that grandchildren have no right to seek partition during lifetime of father raised – Held: Issue need not be examined at this stage since main relief claimed is based on rights as beneficiaries under Will and not as coparceners of joint family property [Para 10].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Plaint discloses cause of action – Issues raised require trial – Suit to proceed