Employment Law – Promotion Criteria – Appeal involving the interpretation of promotion criteria under the BCR Scheme for employees of the Department of Telecommunications – High Court upheld Tribunal’s decision to promote employees based on seniority in the basic grade – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Tribunal orders, ruling that promotions should be as per seniority in Grade-III, not basic grade [Paras 1-18].

Basic Grade Seniority – Applicability – Tribunal directed promotions based on basic grade seniority without considering supernumerary posts created for employees promoted under a different interpretation of the BCR Scheme – Supreme Court held that promotions to Grade-IV should consider seniority in Grade-III post, rejecting the blanket application of basic grade seniority for promotions [Paras 11-15].

Extension of Tribunal Orders – Non-Petitioners – Supreme Court emphasized that benefits of Tribunal’s orders should not extend to non-petitioners unless explicitly directed – Referred to the principle in K.I. Shephard case, stating non-petitioners should not automatically benefit from judgments favoring petitioners unless specified [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and Tribunal orders set aside – Tribunal’s directions for promotion based on basic grade seniority rejected – Promotions to be conducted as per revised government instructions from 13.12.1995, considering seniority in Grade-III [Paras 18].

Excise Law – MODVAT/Cenvat Credit – Appellant, a PSU, challenged the reversal of credit on inputs written off as per financial standards – Adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's argument, leading to the appeal – Tribunal’s refusal to grant clearance contrasted with another PSU’s similar case receiving clearance – Supreme Court considered inconsistencies in the Committee on Disputes (CoD) mechanism [Paras 1-4].

Administered Pricing Mechanism – Excise Valuation – Appellant's valuation method for excisable goods sold at Company Owned and Operated Outlets challenged – Tribunal allowed appellant's method, Department appealed – CoD’s refusal to grant clearance led to appeal [Paras 4-5].

Dispute Resolution Mechanism – CoD Mechanism Revisited – Supreme Court found that CoD mechanism, established by prior orders, had led to delays and inconsistencies – Orders pertaining to the CoD mechanism were recalled as they outlived their utility and failed to achieve intended results efficiently [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders establishing CoD mechanism recalled – Tribunal’s orders inconsistent and leading to delayed justice were highlighted – Legal proceedings involving PSUs no longer require CoD clearance [Paras 11].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Calculation – Appeal against the reduction of compensation awarded by MACT – High Court reduced multiplier applied by MACT from 16 to 5 – Supreme Court reinstated MACT’s award, emphasizing the correct application of the multiplier method in accordance with Sarla Verma guidelines [Paras 1-26].

Multiplier Method – Dependency Calculation – Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s technical approach in calculating the multiplier based solely on the mother’s age, disregarding other dependents and the deceased’s age – Emphasized the need to follow the multiplier table as per Sarla Verma, considering the deceased’s age [Paras 20-23].

Legal Representatives – Inclusion of Dependents – High Court incorrectly excluded other dependents by focusing on the mother as the sole legal representative – Supreme Court included all dependents in the compensation calculation [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – MACT’s award restored – Compensation calculated using a multiplier of 16 based on the deceased’s age, following Sarla Verma guidelines [Paras 24-26].

Land Acquisition – Compensation under Section 23(1A) – Appeals against the High Court's award of compensation under Section 23(1A) – Supreme Court examined applicability of amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, specifically Section 23(1A), in cases where awards were made before the effective date of the amendment [Paras 1-8].

Amendment Applicability – Pending Proceedings – Supreme Court held that amendments to Section 23(1A) applicable to proceedings pending on or after 30.04.1982 – Since awards in the present cases were made before this date, respondents were not entitled to additional compensation under Section 23(1A) [Paras 6-8].

Legal Precedents – Reliance on Constitutional Bench Decisions – Reaffirmed principles established in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala regarding the non-applicability of Section 23(1A) to proceedings concluded before the amendment's effective date [Para 6].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court's award of compensation under Section 23(1A) set aside – Respondents not entitled to benefits under the amended provisions due to the awards being made before 30.04.1982 – No order as to costs [Para 9].

Employment Law – Promotion Criteria – Appeal involving the interpretation of promotion criteria under the BCR Scheme for employees of the Department of Telecommunications – High Court upheld Tribunal’s decision to promote employees based on seniority in the basic grade – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Tribunal orders, ruling that promotions should be as per seniority in Grade-III, not basic grade [Paras 1-18].

Basic Grade Seniority – Applicability – Tribunal directed promotions based on basic grade seniority without considering supernumerary posts created for employees promoted under a different interpretation of the BCR Scheme – Supreme Court held that promotions to Grade-IV should consider seniority in Grade-III post, rejecting the blanket application of basic grade seniority for promotions [Paras 11-15].

Extension of Tribunal Orders – Non-Petitioners – Supreme Court emphasized that benefits of Tribunal’s orders should not extend to non-petitioners unless explicitly directed – Referred to the principle in K.I. Shephard case, stating non-petitioners should not automatically benefit from judgments favoring petitioners unless specified [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and Tribunal orders set aside – Tribunal’s directions for promotion based on basic grade seniority rejected – Promotions to be conducted as per revised government instructions from 13.12.1995, considering seniority in Grade-III [Paras 18].

Excise Law – MODVAT/Cenvat Credit – Appellant, a PSU, challenged the reversal of credit on inputs written off as per financial standards – Adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's argument, leading to the appeal – Tribunal’s refusal to grant clearance contrasted with another PSU’s similar case receiving clearance – Supreme Court considered inconsistencies in the Committee on Disputes (CoD) mechanism [Paras 1-4].

Administered Pricing Mechanism – Excise Valuation – Appellant's valuation method for excisable goods sold at Company Owned and Operated Outlets challenged – Tribunal allowed appellant's method, Department appealed – CoD’s refusal to grant clearance led to appeal [Paras 4-5].

Dispute Resolution Mechanism – CoD Mechanism Revisited – Supreme Court found that CoD mechanism, established by prior orders, had led to delays and inconsistencies – Orders pertaining to the CoD mechanism were recalled as they outlived their utility and failed to achieve intended results efficiently [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders establishing CoD mechanism recalled – Tribunal’s orders inconsistent and leading to delayed justice were highlighted – Legal proceedings involving PSUs no longer require CoD clearance [Paras 11].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Calculation – Appeal against the reduction of compensation awarded by MACT – High Court reduced multiplier applied by MACT from 16 to 5 – Supreme Court reinstated MACT’s award, emphasizing the correct application of the multiplier method in accordance with Sarla Verma guidelines [Paras 1-26].

Multiplier Method – Dependency Calculation – Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s technical approach in calculating the multiplier based solely on the mother’s age, disregarding other dependents and the deceased’s age – Emphasized the need to follow the multiplier table as per Sarla Verma, considering the deceased’s age [Paras 20-23].

Legal Representatives – Inclusion of Dependents – High Court incorrectly excluded other dependents by focusing on the mother as the sole legal representative – Supreme Court included all dependents in the compensation calculation [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – MACT’s award restored – Compensation calculated using a multiplier of 16 based on the deceased’s age, following Sarla Verma guidelines [Paras 24-26].

Land Acquisition – Compensation under Section 23(1A) – Appeals against the High Court's award of compensation under Section 23(1A) – Supreme Court examined applicability of amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, specifically Section 23(1A), in cases where awards were made before the effective date of the amendment [Paras 1-8].

Amendment Applicability – Pending Proceedings – Supreme Court held that amendments to Section 23(1A) applicable to proceedings pending on or after 30.04.1982 – Since awards in the present cases were made before this date, respondents were not entitled to additional compensation under Section 23(1A) [Paras 6-8].

Legal Precedents – Reliance on Constitutional Bench Decisions – Reaffirmed principles established in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala regarding the non-applicability of Section 23(1A) to proceedings concluded before the amendment's effective date [Para 6].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court's award of compensation under Section 23(1A) set aside – Respondents not entitled to benefits under the amended provisions due to the awards being made before 30.04.1982 – No order as to costs [Para 9].

Dental Education – Renewal of Permission – Petitioners, existing dental colleges, were denied renewal for the BDS course due to alleged deficiencies and late communication – High Court directed reconsideration of applications – Central Government granted conditional renewal subject to Supreme Court approval – Supreme Court quashed the condition, declaring the renewals valid [Paras 1-22].

Propriety of Administrative Conditions – Executive Responsibility – Central Government's imposition of a condition requiring Supreme Court approval for renewal of permissions after the deadline deemed improper – Executive decisions under Section 10A of the Dentists Act are not subject to judicial confirmation – Judiciary’s role confined to judicial review, not preemptive validation of executive orders [Paras 10-11].

Time Schedule for Permissions – DCI Regulations – Distinction between initial permissions and renewals – Renewals should follow a shorter, distinct time schedule due to limited scope of verification required – Suggestions for regulatory amendments to provide timely renewals and avoid abrupt refusals [Paras 12-21].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Conditional renewal orders by Central Government validated – Orders of High Court directing hearings and compliance acknowledged – Central Government’s practice of requiring judicial approval for permissions post-deadline declared improper [Para 22].