Service Law – Pay and Allowances During Probation – Notification Quashed – Writ petitions challenged notifications and clarifications issued by the State of Punjab, which stipulated that only traveling allowance would be paid during the probation period, and that the probation period would not count towards the time scale applicable to the post – Held, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" must be applied without discrimination among employees – Plea of financial constraints cannot be selectively applied – Notifications and conditions in appointment letters quashed – Petitioners entitled to regular pay scale and other emoluments from the date of initial appointment. [Paras 1-45]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Financial Constraints – Analysis – The Court rejected the State's plea of financial constraints for not granting full pay and allowances during probation to certain categories of employees while others received such benefits – The principle of "equal pay for equal work" was emphasized, and financial constraints cannot justify unequal treatment among employees. [Paras 38-40]

Decision – Quashing of Notifications and Conditions in Appointment Letters – The Court quashed the notifications and conditions in appointment letters that restricted pay and allowances during the probation period and excluded the probation period from the time scale applicable to the post – Petitioners were directed to be granted regular pay scale and all emoluments from the date of their initial appointment. [Para 45]

Constitutional Law - Appointment of Lambardar – Civil Writ Petition – Quashing of Order – Petitioner sought quashing of Financial Commissioner's order which set aside the Divisional Commissioner's decision and restored the Collector's order appointing Respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Held: The choice of the Collector cannot be lightly interfered with unless there is some perversity or illegality in the order of the Collector. The Collector had duly considered the comparative merits of all candidates. No perversity or illegality was found in the order of the Collector. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Judicial Review – Role of Collector – The Court emphasized that the choice of the District Collector in appointing Lambardar should not be interfered with unless there is a clear perversity or illegality. The Divisional Commissioner’s order was found to be in violation of this principle as there was no substantive finding of perversity or illegality in the Collector’s order. [Para 6]

Age and Comparative Merits – Analysis – The Court noted that the Collector had evaluated the candidates based on various factors, including age, recommendations from lower revenue officers, and community support. The respondent, being younger and supported by local authorities, was deemed more suitable despite having lesser educational qualifications than the petitioner. [Paras 2, 8, 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – The petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the Financial Commissioner which reinstated the Collector's decision. The Divisional Commissioner's re-evaluation was found unwarranted as no illegality or perversity was established in the original appointment order. [Paras 11-12]

Village Common Lands – Jurisdiction – Collusive Transfer – Petition challenging the award passed by the Daily Lok Adalat, Hisar, which approved the exchange of Panchayat land with private land. The exchange was done without the approval of the State Government and without any resolution indicating the benefit to the village inhabitants. Held, the award by the Daily Lok Adalat is beyond its jurisdiction and thus, a nullity. Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to entertain such claims. Petition allowed, and the impugned award quashed. [Paras 1-10]

Land Exchange – Approval Requirement – Exchange of Gram Panchayat land requires prior approval from the State Government and must be for the benefit of the village inhabitants. Held, the Gram Panchayat resolution did not provide any plausible reasons showing the exchange's benefit to the village. The exchange was done in violation of Rule 5 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. [Paras 3-6]

Decision:

Petition allowed. The impugned award dated 15.11.2013 passed by the Daily Lok Adalat, Hisar is quashed. A copy of this order is to be sent to the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Development and Panchayats, Haryana, Chandigarh for issuing necessary instructions to prevent future collusive transfers of Panchayat land through civil court decrees. [Paras 9-10]

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Natural Justice – Writ petition challenging dismissal from service for alleged bribery – Personal hearing conducted by a different officer than the one who passed the final order – Held, principles of natural justice mandate that the officer who hears must also decide – Successor officer had no occasion to hear the petitioner – Impugned order quashed – Matter remanded for fresh consideration by disciplinary authority. [Paras 1-8]

Principles of Natural Justice – Hearing and Decision by Same Officer – Held – Personal hearing becomes an empty formality if the officer hearing the case is different from the one deciding it – Essential feature of natural justice requires the same officer to both hear and decide – Hearing by one officer and decision by another invalidates the order. [Para 7]

Decision – Order Quashed and Remanded – Impugned dismissal order quashed – Case remitted to disciplinary authority for fresh order after hearing – Fresh order to comply with Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 – Order of reinstatement kept in abeyance pending fresh consideration. [Para 8]

Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Invocation of powers - Scope and ambit - The court invoked its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the applicant to face trial based on evidence that indicated her complicity in the offense - The court clarified that the evidence considered for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is the material collected during the inquiry or trial and not the material collected during the investigation by the investigating agency.

Prosecution of women for rape - Amended provisions of IPC - While Section 375 IPC specifically states that only a man can commit the offense of rape, the amended Section 376-D IPC provides for a distinct offense of gang rape, where one or more persons acting in furtherance of a common intention commit the offense - The court clarified that a woman cannot commit rape as defined under Section 375 IPC, but she can be prosecuted for gang rape if she facilitates the act with a group of people.

Principle of joint liability - Section 376-D IPC - In cases of gang rape, if rape has been committed by one person in a group, all the accused will be guilty due to the principle of joint liability - The court emphasized that common intention and criminal sharing among the offenders must be established, and the term "person" in Section 376-D IPC should not be construed narrowly.

Judgment - No interference in the impugned order - The court concluded that there is no scope for interference in the impugned order, as the evidence and the provisions of law support the summoning of the applicant to face trial for the offense of gang rape - application filed by the applicant was dismissed. (Para No. 8, 11, 12)

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Impounding of Passport – Violation of Natural Justice – Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition seeking mandamus for the return of passport impounded by the authorities – Petitioner convicted in a criminal case and serving a sentence of three years – Appeal against conviction pending – Passport authorities issued notice and impounded passport on the same day – Held, the impounding order was illegal and arbitrary, violating the principles of natural justice – Order passed without giving petitioner a proper opportunity to respond – Supreme Court's decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India applied – Petition allowed with costs – Directions issued to return the passport and pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner​​.

Exercise of Power – Principles of Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Analysis of the actions by the passport authorities reveals a clear violation of the principles of natural justice – Issuance of notice and order of impounding on the same day considered an eyewash – Authorities failed to follow a just and fair procedure – Ex-facie wrongful exercise of power leading to an arbitrary decision​​.

Alternate Remedy – Section 11 of the Passport Act – Argument that an appeal under Section 11 is an alternate remedy dismissed – Ex-facie violation of natural justice principles justifies the High Court's intervention under Article 226 – Petitioner’s lack of notice or communication regarding impounding deemed sufficient for bypassing alternate remedy​​.

Decision – Quashing Impounding Order – Return of Passport with Costs – Impounding order declared illegal and in violation of natural justice – Passport authorities directed to return the passport immediately – Petitioner awarded costs due to arbitrary action by authorities – Costs to be recovered from responsible officers by the Union of India​​.

Service Law – Promotion Eligibility – Joint Seniority – Letters Patent Appeal against the order directing reconsideration of promotion cases – Respondents promoted as Senior Assistants from a common seniority list – Appellants contended respondents lacked one year experience as Clerks as per Rule 8(1)(d)(ii) – Held, Rule 11 Note-1 treats Clerks, Steno Typists, and Junior Scale Stenographers as the same class for promotion – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-37]

Equivalence of Posts – Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia – Held – Law does not compel the impossible – Steno Typists and Junior Scale Stenographers cannot gain Clerk experience if directly recruited – Higher qualification holders not to be disadvantaged – Treated as having Clerk experience if they meet overall service requirement – Consistent with Rule 11 Note-1 for joint seniority. [Paras 28-34]

Higher Qualification – No Disadvantage – Held – Graduates appointed as Steno Typists or Junior Scale Stenographers should not be disqualified from promotion to Senior Assistant due to lack of Clerk experience – Rules aim for fairness in promotion eligibility – Higher qualification holders to be on par with Clerks for promotion considerations. [Paras 35-36]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge upheld – No interference warranted – Appellants directed to reconsider promotions based on joint seniority and qualifications as per Rules – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 37-38]

Court Fees – Refund – Compromise and Settlement – Writ petition challenging refusal to refund court fee after settlement of suit – Petitioner-plaintiff filed for possession by specific performance and permanent injunction – Suit dismissed as withdrawn based on compromise – Application for refund of court fee dismissed by lower court – Held, Section 16 of the Court Fees Act mandates refund upon settlement – Lower court's failure to order refund at dismissal stage erroneous – Refund of court fee ordered. [Paras 1-13]

Legislative Intent – Encouragement of Settlements – Held – Section 16 of the Court Fees Act and Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act aim to encourage dispute settlements – Provisions mandate refund of court fees upon case settlement – Legislative intent is twofold: settle disputes and refund court fees paid by plaintiffs. [Para 10]

Procedural Requirement – Mandatory Language – Held – The term 'shall' in Section 16 denotes mandatory duty on courts to order refund of court fees upon settlement – Even if not ordered at the time of settlement, subsequent applications must be granted – Lower court's dismissal of refund application without such consideration wrong. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Lower court's order set aside – Petitioner-plaintiff entitled to refund of court fee paid at suit's institution – Direction for refund issued. [Para 13]

Landlord-Tenant Law – Bona Fide Necessity – Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 – Landlord's prerogative to determine suitability of premises – Tenant cannot dictate how landlord satisfies his need – Petition for ejection on personal necessity presumed genuine – Orders of eviction upheld – Petition dismissed. [Para 9]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Findings of fact by lower authorities unless perverse or opposed to evidence not interfered with in revisional jurisdiction – High Court's role confined to ensuring findings are according to law and not erroneous – Concurrent findings of bona fide necessity by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Petition dismissed. [Para 11]

Decision – Orders of Eviction Upheld – Both Rent Controller and Appellate Authority correctly found landlord's need bona fide – No perversity or error in findings – Revision petition dismissed. [Para 11]