Criminal Law - Parole - Temporary Release of Prisoners – Petitioner, a life convict for murder, denied parole on grounds of potential criminal activity – Held, likelihood of committing crime while on parole is not sufficient to decline parole – Parole can be denied only if release endangers state security or public order – Petitioner does not fall under 'hardcore prisoner' category, making him eligible for parole – Petition allowed, authorities directed to reconsider parole application. [Paras 11-13]

Statutory Interpretation - Definitions and Conditions – Section 2(aa) defines 'hardcore prisoner' excluding the petitioner – Sections 3 and 4 allow parole and furlough for good conduct, while Section 5A restricts release of certain prisoners – Section 6(2) specifies denial grounds related to state security and public order – Petitioner's parole denial on grounds of potential crime deemed unjustified – Authorities must provide valid reasons aligned with statutory provisions. [Paras 11-12]

Administrative Discretion - Judicial Review – District Magistrate’s recommendation based on general likelihood of crime insufficient – Statutory mandate requires specific threats to state security or public order for parole denial – Arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion rectified through judicial intervention – Authorities directed to reassess parole application with clear reasoning. [Paras 13, 16]

Decision: Petition allowed – District Magistrate's recommendation dated 1.2.2016 set aside – Authorities directed to reconsider parole application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law – Parole granted subject to petitioner’s compliance with surety and behavioral conditions. [Paras 16-17]

Rent Law - Eviction for Bona Fide Requirement - Personal Necessity – Landlord filed ejectment petition for the bona fide requirement of setting up his son – Concurrent findings by lower courts ordering eviction – Petitioner contended that during pendency of the proceedings, landlord’s son had let out another property – Petitioner's application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to raise this point was rejected and never challenged – Held, eviction ordered based on bona fide requirement upheld – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1, 5, 8]

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Due Diligence Requirement – Tenant’s application for amendment of written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rejected by Rent Controller – Application sought to raise new issues about letting out property by landlord’s son – Rejected due to conclusion of evidence and lack of challenge to the rejection order – Amendment not permissible post-commencement of trial without due diligence. [Paras 5-6]

Judicial Review - Concurrent Findings - Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court noted that both lower courts had given concurrent findings regarding the landlord’s bona fide need – No specific grounds in tenant’s reply denying the requirement for personal necessity – Witnesses testified about landlord’s health and son’s need for premises – No new evidence justifying interference in lower courts’ well-reasoned orders – Revision petition dismissed in limine. [Paras 4, 6-9]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order upheld – Petitioner's application for amendment rightly rejected due to lack of challenge and late-stage filing – Landlord’s bona fide requirement for son’s use of premises affirmed. [Para 9]

Constitutional Law - Judicial Service - Inter-se Seniority - Quota System - Judicial Review – The petitioners challenged the seniority list dated 24.12.2015 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. The primary issue was the inter-se seniority among officers appointed through three sources: promotion from Civil Judges (Senior Division) based on merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test (50% quota); promotion through limited departmental competitive examination (25% quota); and direct recruitment (25% quota). The court held that any promotion made in excess of the quota prescribed in the rules must be treated as ad hoc and cannot be justified. Such officers are entitled to seniority only from the date when a vacancy in their quota becomes available. Violating or interchanging the quotas set in the rules would set a bad precedent and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Paras 1-201]​​

**Ad hoc Promotions - Seniority Benefits - Held, officers promoted beyond their prescribed quota are considered ad hoc and do not receive seniority benefits until a vacancy in their quota arises. The placement in seniority is effective only from the date when a post in their quota becomes available. [Paras 205-206]​​

No Estoppel Against Statute - Suitability Test - Held, the suitability test for promotion prescribed by the Supreme Court and included in the rules cannot be bypassed by administrative decisions or practices. Officers promoted without passing the required suitability test are not entitled to claim regular promotion status. [Paras 13, 46]​​

Decision - Petition Dismissed - The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the seniority list dated 24.12.2015, with the direction that promotions exceeding the prescribed quota are to be considered ad hoc and seniority adjustments to be made accordingly. [Paras 200-201, 205-206]​​

Land Acquisition Law - Enhanced Compensation - Equitable Treatment of Landowners – Petitioner contended that respondent landowner, who did not appeal the compensation award, should not receive the enhanced compensation granted to other landowners in similar circumstances – Held, equitable treatment requires similarly situated landowners to receive similar compensation – Supreme Court precedent mandates pragmatic and non-pedantic approach in land acquisition matters – Enhanced compensation granted to the respondent landowner upheld. [Paras 7-8, 10-11, 15]

Principles of Natural Justice - Avoiding Multiplicity of Litigation – Emphasis on substantial justice and avoiding multiplicity of litigation – Respondent’s land acquired under same notification as other landowners who received higher compensation – Denial of similar compensation to respondent deemed discriminatory – Executing court's order upheld. [Paras 19-20]

Supreme Court Precedents - Pragmatic Approach in Land Acquisition – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing equitable compensation for similarly situated landowners – Courts must balance equities and ensure substantive rights are not defeated on technical grounds – Precedents in Samiyathal v. Special Tehsildar and Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana followed. [Paras 11-13, 15]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Enhanced compensation awarded to respondent landowner upheld – Execution court's order affirmed. [Para 23]

Land Law - Redetermination of Surplus Area - Suo Moto Powers – Financial Commissioner invoked suo moto powers after 11 years to redetermine surplus area – Held, such invocation not permissible once determination has attained finality up to the High Court – Surplus area vested and mutated in favor of the State, utilized, and not available for redetermination – Arbitrary and without jurisdiction – Orders set aside. [Paras 15, 17, 20]

Jurisdictional Limits - Finality of Orders - Non-Reopenable Cases – Once surplus area determination becomes final, it cannot be reopened arbitrarily – Financial Commissioner lacked jurisdiction as per notification delineating authority among benches – Final orders from High Court bind revisional authorities – Reopening based on assumptions about age verification of landowner’s son invalid. [Paras 15-17]

Public Administration - Legal Finality and Administrative Efficiency – Once land vested and allotted, re-determination of surplus area undermines administrative efficiency and legal certainty – State failed to provide evidence that allotments were paper transactions – Petitioners' possession and utilization of land legally recognized and unchallenged – Reopening surplus area after long lapse deemed misuse of suo moto powers. [Paras 20, 22]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 28.08.2006, 31.10.2008, and 18.04.2009 set aside – Redetermination of surplus area held arbitrary and without jurisdiction. [Para 23]

Motor Vehicles Act - Classification of Transport and Non-Transport Vehicles – Petitioner’s vehicles used to ferry employees – Held, there is an intelligible differentia between private and commercial use of vehicles – Vehicles carrying employees for trade/business purposes fall under 'private service vehicle' per Section 2(33) – Such vehicles classified as transport vehicles under the Act. [Paras 8-9]

Taxation Law - Punjab Passenger and Goods Taxation Act - Definition and Tax Liability – Vehicles used to transport employees fall under 'motor vehicle' in the Act – Employees considered passengers despite no fare being charged – Tax computed as per explanation to Section 3(1) – Petitioners' vehicles liable for passenger tax as they are not private carriers. [Paras 12-15]

Judicial Interpretation - Validity of Classification and Tax Imposition – Classification by the respondents deemed logical and legal – Distinct categorization of vehicles based on ownership and usage upheld – Petitioners' challenge to tax imposition on vehicles dismissed. [Paras 8-10, 15-16]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Classification of petitioners' vehicles as transport vehicles and imposition of passenger tax upheld. [Paras 16-17]

Service Law - Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme - Deputation and Absorption – Petitioner challenged CAT order granting Senior Scale to respondent by counting service rendered on deputation before absorption – Held, deputation period must be counted towards minimum qualifying years for Senior Scale/Selection Grade – Government’s ACP Scheme guidelines mandate inclusion of deputation service if pay scale remains the same before and after absorption – Administrative policy to the contrary invalid for ACP benefits – Tribunal’s order upheld. [Paras 4-6]

Statutory Interpretation - ACP Scheme and Service on Deputation – Interpretation of ACP Scheme guidelines confirms that service on deputation is to be included for computing eligibility for Senior Scale/Selection Grade – Benefit of ACP intended to provide incentives to employees stagnated without promotion – Administrative decisions conflicting with statutory guidelines not sustainable – Personal benefit of Senior Scale independent of seniority considerations for other employees. [Paras 5-7]

Judicial Review - Administrative Decisions and Statutory Compliance – Tribunal’s adherence to statutory ACP guidelines affirmed – Administrative policies conflicting with statutory entitlements struck down – Respondent entitled to Senior Scale from 24.07.2001, counting service from deputation commencement date. [Paras 6-8]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Tribunal order upheld – Respondent entitled to Senior Scale counting service from deputation period. [Para 8]

Constitutional Law - Articles 32 and 226 - Res Judicata and Procedural Bars in Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioners filed applications for transferring cases to NGT after similar applications were previously withdrawn – Held, principles of res judicata and CPC provisions apply to writ jurisdiction under Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction Rules – Earlier withdrawal of applications constitutes relinquishment of claims – Petitioners cannot re-agitate same relief in subsequent applications – Writ jurisdiction requires observance of procedural fairness and public policy rules. [Paras 32-35]

Administrative Law - Transfer of Cases - Jurisdictional Competence – Petitioners sought transfer of environmental matters to specialized NGT – High Court previously dismissed similar transfer applications – Subsequent applications barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 read with Section 141 CPC – Transfer petitions cannot be reconsidered without setting aside earlier orders – High Court retains jurisdiction to decide environmental matters not transferred to NGT. [Paras 33-41]

Public Interest Litigation - Re-agitation of Claims – Public interest litigations are not exempt from procedural principles like res judicata – Withdrawal of earlier applications precludes re-agitation of same issues – Procedural consistency and judicial discipline necessitate adherence to finality of orders – Petitioners directed to seek recall or modification of earlier orders if aggrieved. [Paras 35, 40]

Decision: Applications dismissed – Petitioners’ plea for transfer of cases to NGT rejected – Earlier dismissal of similar applications deemed conclusive and binding – No merit found in re-agitating transfer petitions. [Paras 41-42]

Administrative Law - Applicability of CPC Rules to Tribunal Proceedings – Tribunal's approach in ignoring specific allegations in Original Application regarding non-communication of subsequent Written Test Notice and interview scheduling, despite written statement's evasive denial, caused prejudice – CPC Rules governing pleadings apply fully to Tribunal proceedings – Evasive denial leads to deemed admission of allegations – Tribunal's order unsustainable. [Paras 5-6]

Service Law - Family Pension Scheme - Eligibility Despite Non-regularization – Deceased employee worked continuously for over 14 years and passed medical examination – Despite passing written test, never called for interview – No rule mandating interview for regularization – Non-communication of test schedules not employee’s fault – Widow entitled to family pension and retiral benefits by notionally treating service as regularized – Tribunal's contrary order set aside. [Paras 10-11]

Principles of Natural Justice - Evasive Denials and Fair Hearing – Written statement’s evasive denial of specific allegations regarding interview and test communication – Tribunal failed to consider these specific contentions – Principles of natural justice violated – Specific allegations left unchallenged deemed admitted – Impugned order quashed. [Paras 5, 11]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned Tribunal order set aside – Respondents directed to grant family pension and other retiral benefits by notionally treating the deceased employee’s service as regularized – Petitioner entitled to arrears of pension for three years preceding Original Application filing date (May 2012) onwards – Compliance within four months. [Para 11-12]