Property Law – Partition – Appeal against the High Court’s modification of the Trial Court’s decree – Plaintiffs sought partition of three properties, claiming 4/5th share – Trial Court held all three properties as joint family properties, decreeing partition – High Court reversed this, declaring only the third property as joint family property – Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing the significance of an admission under Section 17 of the Evidence Act [Paras 1-41].

Evidence – Admission under Section 17 – Importance of admission in evidence law – Letter (Ex.A-17) by the first respondent admitting the suit properties were purchased in his name but not his exclusive properties – Supreme Court held that this constituted a substantial piece of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claim – High Court’s omission to consider this evidence amounted to a misreading of the evidence [Paras 23-29, 39].

Gift – Legal Principles under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act – First respondent’s claim that the first property was a gift from his father – No evidence of a valid gift deed or acceptance – Supreme Court emphasized the need for explicit evidence to support claims of gift – Lack of evidence led to rejection of the gift claim, supporting the Trial Court’s findings [Paras 33-37, 40].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment – Restored the Trial Court’s decree, confirming all three properties as joint family properties subject to partition [Para 41].

Employment Law – Dismissal of Disabled Employee – Appeal against High Court's affirmation of the teacher’s dismissal during her mental illness – Appellant dismissed for absenteeism without consideration of her mental disability – Supreme Court held dismissal violated Section 47(1) of the Disabilities Act – Directed reinstatement and compliance with the Act [Paras 1-25].

Persons with Disabilities Act – Section 47 – Prohibition on dismissal or reduction in rank of an employee acquiring disability during service – Supreme Court emphasized mandatory compliance with Section 47 – Declared the order of dismissal void and directed reinstatement with regular salary and arrears [Paras 14, 24-25].

Commissioner’s Jurisdiction – Section 62 of Disabilities Act – Commissioner empowered to address complaints regarding deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities – Supreme Court affirmed Commissioner’s authority to set aside the dismissal order and direct reinstatement – High Court’s failure to address this jurisdictional issue led to reversal of its judgment [Paras 16, 18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and reinstated the appellant with immediate effect – Directed payment of regular salary from 1.2.2008 and arrears within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum will apply [Paras 24-25].

Recruitment – Criminal Antecedents – Suitability for Police Service:

Candidates provisionally selected for Delhi Police constable positions, who were previously involved in criminal cases, had their appointments cancelled by the Screening Committee. The cancellation was upheld by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity and discipline of the police force. Acquittals based on compromise or benefit of doubt were not deemed sufficient for suitability [Paras 1-88].

Acquittal – Nature and Implications:

Acquittals resulting from compromises or witness hostility were scrutinized. The court distinguished between honourable acquittals and those due to procedural flaws or technicalities. The Screening Committee was found justified in cancelling appointments if acquittals did not reflect a clean exoneration [Paras 22-23].

Policy Implementation – Screening Committee's Role:

The Delhi Police's policy, under Standing Order No. 398/2010, mandated a Screening Committee to assess the suitability of candidates with criminal antecedents. The Supreme Court supported the Committee's discretion in maintaining high standards for recruitment, underscoring the necessity of impeccable character for police personnel [Paras 18-19].

Decision:

The appeals by the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi were allowed. The orders of the Delhi High Court, which had set aside the cancellations, were reversed. The Screening Committee's decision to cancel the respondents' candidatures was upheld, affirming the importance of integrity in police recruitment [Paras 31].

Service Law – Retirement Age – Differential Treatment:

The Supreme Court addressed the legality of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam’s regulations that set different retirement ages for employees transferred from the Local Self Government Engineering Department (60 years) and those directly recruited by the Nigam (58 years). The court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring the regulations unconstitutional for creating unjustifiable distinctions among similarly situated employees [Paras 1-88].

Regulations – Amendment and Consistency:

The court emphasized that changes to service regulations must be made with proper amendments and approvals. The Jal Nigam's failure to amend Regulation 31 when framing the 2005 Regulations was noted as a procedural lapse. The State's directive to uniformly reduce the retirement age to 58 years was found inconsistent with statutory provisions [Paras 9-11, 21-29].

Equality – Article 14 of the Constitution:

The court held that treating employees differently based on their source of recruitment without intelligible differentia violates Article 14. The decision reinforced that post-appointment, all employees should be governed uniformly regarding service conditions including retirement age [Paras 22-24].

Consequential Benefits:

The court directed that employees who approached the court before their retirement are entitled to full salary and benefits up to the age of 60 years. Those who did not seek legal recourse but were retired at 58 years would have their retirement benefits recalculated assuming a retirement age of 60 years, without arrears of salary [Paras 34-38].

Decision:

The appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh were disposed of, affirming the High Court's judgment that declared the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement on Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 unconstitutional. The employees' retirement age was uniformly set at 60 years with specified consequential benefits [Paras 30-39].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Foreign Income Conversion:

In a motor accident case, the Supreme Court held that the foreign currency income of a deceased should be converted to Indian Rupees based on the exchange rate prevailing at the time of filing the claim petition, not at the time of determination. This principle ensures fairness and consistency in compensation calculations​​.

Negligence – Contributory Negligence – Evidence Assessment:

The court found that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased based on presumptive evidence. Direct evidence from an independent eyewitness and police reports clearly indicated that the accident was solely due to the bus driver’s rash and negligent driving​​.

Compensation – Just and Proper Award:

The Supreme Court recalculated the compensation by applying the correct multiplier based on the deceased's age and adjusted for personal expenses. The recalculated total compensation awarded was Rs. 57,49,500 with 12% interest from the date of filing the claim petition until realization​​.

Decision:

The appeals were allowed in part, modifying the High Court's judgment and the Tribunal's award. The recalculated compensation, with interest, was ordered to be paid within three months, adjusting any amounts already paid to the claimants​​.

Armed Forces – Disability Pension – Attributability and Aggravation:

The Supreme Court addressed whether a member of the armed forces could be presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service in the absence of any recorded disabilities or diseases. The court also examined if the appellant was entitled to disability pension for a disease (generalised seizure) that arose during his service​​.

Presumption of Sound Health – Rule 5 of Entitlement Rules:

The court upheld the presumption that a member of the armed forces is considered to have been in sound health upon entry unless a pre-existing condition was noted at the time. Any subsequent health deterioration is presumed to be due to service​​.

Onus of Proof – Rule 9 of Entitlement Rules:

The claimant is not required to prove the conditions of entitlement to disability pension. The benefit of any reasonable doubt is to be given more liberally to the claimant, particularly in cases of field/afloat service​​.

Medical Board's Opinion – Requirement for Reasoning:

The court held that the Medical Board must provide reasons if it concludes that a disease could not have been detected during the initial medical examination upon entry into service. The Medical Board's opinion must be supported by a comprehensive analysis considering all relevant service conditions and medical history​​.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, and restored the order of the Single Judge. The respondents were directed to grant the appellant disability pension from the date of his invalidation from service, along with arrears and interest as specified by the Single Judge​​.

Criminal Law – Addition of Charges – Section 302 IPC:

The Supreme Court examined whether the trial court was justified in framing a charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellants, despite initially framing charges under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 IPC. The addition was based on a directive from the Supreme Court in Rajbir @ Raju and Another v. State of Haryana, which called for adding Section 302 IPC to cases involving Section 304B IPC​​.

Scope of Section 216 CrPC – Alteration of Charges:

Section 216 CrPC allows the court to alter or add any charge at any stage before the judgment is pronounced. The court emphasized that this power must be exercised judiciously based on the evidence presented, rather than mechanically following directives​​.

Directive in Rajbir’s Case – Interpretation:

The court clarified that the directive in Rajbir’s case did not imply that Section 302 IPC should be added in every case involving Section 304B IPC without examining the evidence. Instead, the directive intended that Section 302 IPC could be added if the evidence supports such a charge​​.

Remand for Fresh Consideration:

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, which had added the charge under Section 302 IPC mechanically. The matter was remitted back to the trial court to reconsider the addition of the charge under Section 302 IPC based on the evidence and legal principles​​.

Decision:

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the trial court and the High Court were set aside. The trial court was directed to re-examine the question of framing a charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellants, ensuring an evidence-based and reasoned decision​​.

Service Law – Disability – Compulsory Retirement:

The Supreme Court examined the legality of compulsory retirement of an IAS officer, Anil Kumar Mahajan, on grounds of mental illness, considering the protections under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act)​​.

Disability – Non-Discrimination in Employment:

The court underscored that Section 47 of the Disabilities Act prohibits dispensing with or reducing in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service. If an employee is found unsuitable for the post due to the disability, they should be shifted to another post with the same pay scale and benefits, or kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is found or the employee attains superannuation​​.

Mental Illness – Definition and Protections:

Mental illness is recognized as a disability under Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act. The appellant, having served as an IAS officer since 1977, was found to have developed mental illness during his service. The court noted that his compulsory retirement in 2007 violated Section 47 as no effort was made to adjust his service conditions according to the Act​​.

Procedural Lapse – Inquiry and Withdrawal:

The High Court erred by allowing the withdrawal of the appellant's petition without addressing the merits of his mental condition or appointing a Medical Board to assess his mental health. The Supreme Court emphasized that such cases should be handled with sensitivity, potentially involving an amicus curiae if necessary​​.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the compulsory retirement order, and directed the respondents to treat the appellant as having continued in service until his normal superannuation date. The appellant was entitled to full salary and benefits from the date of the departmental proceedings initiation until his superannuation, along with all retiral benefits​​.

Environment Law – Public Trust Doctrine – Protection of Natural Resources:

The Supreme Court dealt with the construction of a restaurant on reclaimed land from the Periyar River by the Aluva Municipality and District Tourism Promotion Council, emphasizing the application of the public trust doctrine to protect natural resources​​.

Constitutional Provisions – Article 48A and Article 51A:

The court noted that the State has a duty under Article 48A to protect and improve the environment, and citizens have a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife​​.

State Government's Commitment – Environmental Impact Assessment:

G.O. dated 13.1.1978 mandated that all development projects costing over Rs. 10 lakhs must be reviewed by the Environmental Planning and Coordination Committee for their environmental impact. The court found that the construction of the restaurant, part of a larger project costing Rs. 5572432, did not comply with this requirement, thereby violating the mandate of the G.O. and the constitutional obligation​​.

Judicial Precedents – Application of Public Trust Doctrine:

The court cited previous cases where the public trust doctrine was applied to protect natural resources, reaffirming that the State holds these resources in trust for the public and cannot convert them for private use or commercial exploitation unless it is necessary for the public good and in public interest​​.

Decision:

The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to demolish the structure raised for the restaurant within three months, ensuring compliance with the principles of environmental protection and the public trust doctrine​​.