Service Law – Deputation vs. Direct Recruitment – Promotion – The respondent, originally appointed on deputation as Manager (Technical), was later repatriated to his parent department before rejoining the appellant through direct recruitment – Respondent sought recognition of deputation service for promotion eligibility – Held: Repatriation constituted a clear break in service; respondent’s direct recruitment constituted a fresh entry into the appellant’s service – Deputation service prior to direct recruitment cannot be counted for promotion under the Recruitment Regulations or the appellant’s Circular dated 22.05.2017 – Appeal allowed, CAT and High Court orders set aside [Paras 23–29].

Circular Interpretation – Deputation Service and Absorption – Scope and Limits – The Circular issued as a one-time measure permitted deputation service to be treated as regular service for promotion, provided administrative formalities like technical resignation or retirement were fulfilled – The respondent, having been repatriated without such formalities and subsequently rejoining as a direct recruit, fell outside the Circular’s scope – No continuity of service could be claimed for promotion [Paras 25–28].

Doctrine of Equality – No Parity Between Ineligible and Eligible Candidates – The respondent claimed discrimination against three other officers who benefited from the Circular – Held: Parity could not be claimed as those officers had continuous service without gaps, unlike the respondent – Differentiation upheld as lawful and non-arbitrary [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgments of the High Court and CAT set aside – Original Application filed by the respondent dismissed – Respondent to be considered for future promotions under applicable rules and regulations from his re-entry on 26.08.2015 – No recovery of excess benefits paid to the respondent [Paras 29–30].

Service Law – Superannuation – Applicability of Revised AICTE/UGC Regulations – Appellant, Director at CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), contested his retirement at sixty years of age, citing amended AICTE/UGC regulations that raised the age of superannuation for teachers to sixty-five years – High Court dismissed his Writ Petition, affirming sixty years as the retirement age applicable under state policies and CSIIT’s governing rules – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision [Paras 1, 2, 9, 12].

Minority Educational Institutions – Applicability of State and Central Regulations – CSIIT, a Private Unaided Minority Educational Institution, governed by the affiliating JNT University and state regulations – Telangana government had not adopted revised UGC regulations on retirement age – Appellant failed to demonstrate entitlement to the revised retirement age as CSIIT’s policies adhered to state norms [Paras 3, 7, 9].

Administrative Role vs. Teaching Duties – Applicability of AICTE/UGC Regulations – Appellant served as Director and performed administrative duties – AICTE/UGC regulations concerning retirement age apply to teachers engaged in classroom teaching – Appellant did not qualify as a teacher post-appointment as Director – Supreme Court rejected claims of regulatory benefit extension [Paras 8, 10].

Retirement Benefits and Conduct – Appellant sought retiral benefits post-superannuation, indicating acceptance of retirement – Subsequent challenges to superannuation lacked merit as no evidence was provided to establish eligibility for continued service under revised regulations [Paras 9, 10].

Precedents Distinguished – Judgments cited by the Appellant concerning the binding nature of UGC regulations found factually inapplicable to the present case – No deviation from state policy warranted [Paras 6, 11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant’s retirement upheld – Respondent No.4’s appointment as Director of CSIIT confirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12, 13, 14].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Implied Right to Possession – Execution Permitted – The petitioners, subsequent purchasers, opposed the High Court's direction for the delivery of possession to the decree-holder in a specific performance case where the original decree did not expressly order possession – Held: The decree-holder has an implied right to possession under Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in cases where exclusive possession is with the contracting party – Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition upheld the High Court’s interpretation [Paras 12-14].

Specific Relief Act – Amendment and Execution – Possession Claim Permissible at Execution Stage – Relying on Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, (1982) 1 SCC 525, the Court reaffirmed that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act allows a decree-holder to claim possession at any stage, including during execution, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Relief granted by the High Court upheld [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Precedents – Settled Position Reiterated – The judgment in Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd., 2024 INSC 920, reiterated the established principle that in cases of exclusive possession with the contracting party, specific performance decrees inherently include possession rights unless expressly excluded [Para 15].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – The decree-holder entitled to possession as part of the specific performance decree, consistent with the principles laid down in Babu Lal and Rohit Kochhar cases [Para 16].

Service Law – Citizenship and Termination of Service – Delay in Verification – Principles of Natural Justice – Termination Held Arbitrary – Appellant served for 26 years before termination based on police report from 2010 – Tribunal quashed the termination for lack of personal hearing and detailed reasons – High Court erroneously restored the termination – Supreme Court restored Tribunal’s order citing gross violation of principles of natural justice and lack of cogent reasons [Paras 12.1, 12.6–12.8].

Citizenship – Onus of Proof – Section 9, Foreigners Act – Indian Citizenship Claimed through Migration – Burden of Proof on Individual – Migration certificate and related documents held sufficient for appellant’s claim under Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – High Court’s conclusion contrary to evidence on record overturned [Paras 11.1–11.3].

Natural Justice – Administrative Decision – Right to Be Heard – Administrative and quasi-judicial orders must provide reasons and afford personal hearing to affected individuals – Failure to furnish police report and termination without personal hearing held to vitiate entire process [Paras 12.2–12.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Tribunal’s order quashing termination restored – Respondents directed to pay all service benefits within three months – Court directed all States to ensure timely police verification of candidates within six months of appointment to avoid recurrence of such cases [Paras 13, 13.1].

Criminal Law - Protest Petition – Direction to Reconsider Case – Order Upheld – The appellant challenged the High Court's decision that set aside the Magistrate's order directing the investigating agency to reconsider the case based on a protest petition – The Court interpreted the Magistrate’s order as a direction for continuation of investigation, not reinvestigation, aligning with the law – Held: High Court's observations quashing the Magistrate's order were improper – Order of Magistrate upheld [Paras 14-15, 18].

Scope of Magistrate’s Power – Investigation and Reconsideration – The Magistrate directed the investigating agency to reconsider facts based on expert opinions and sworn statements – Held: Such direction is within the scope of the Magistrate's power under the law, provided it aligns with the principles of fair investigation [Paras 12, 18].

Quashing of Proceedings – High Court's Overreach – The High Court quashed the Magistrate’s docket order based on an incorrect interpretation of the term “reinvestigation” – The Supreme Court found that the term implied a continuation of the investigation, not a fresh reinvestigation – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by setting aside the Magistrate’s order without considering its true intent [Paras 14, 15, 20].

Decision – The appeal was allowed – The High Court's observations in paragraphs 14 and 15 were set aside – The Magistrate's docket order was upheld and directed to be implemented as per law [Paras 18-20].
 

Matrimonial Law - Enhancement of maintenance - Exercise of Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Application - The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC for enhancement of interim maintenance, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 397 CrPC. The Supreme Court reiterated that the nomenclature of a petition is immaterial, and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to prevent abuse of process or in extraordinary circumstances – Held: High Court erred; it should have converted the petition into a revision under Section 397 CrPC and decided on merits [Paras 5-8].

Judicial Approach to Technical Dismissals – Procedural Fairness Over Form - In dismissing the petition on technical grounds, the High Court compelled the appellant to approach the Supreme Court unnecessarily. Substantive justice demands that the Court focus on resolving the real dispute rather than dismissing on hyper-technical grounds – Held: Impugned order set aside; petition to be treated as a revision [Paras 7, 8].

Guidance for High Courts – Conversion of Petitions for Substantive Justice - Drawing from precedents like Madhu Limaye and Prabhu Chawla, the Supreme Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not superseded by Section 397 CrPC and can be exercised to address extraordinary circumstances, particularly where dismissals would result in injustice – Held: High Court directed to decide the matter on merits after converting the petition [Paras 6-8].

Remand for Decision on Interim Maintenance – Expedited Resolution - The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court with directions to treat the petition under Section 482 CrPC as a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC and decide the issue of enhancement of interim maintenance expeditiously – Held: Matter remanded for expeditious disposal [Para 8].
 

Criminal Law – Fair Investigation – Transfer of Investigation – Petition under Article 32 seeking transfer of investigation of FIR No. 400 of 2020 and FIR No. 401 of 2020 from the West Bengal police to an independent agency – Allegations of political vendetta and misuse of state machinery against petitioner, a BJP spokesperson, by respondent No. 7, a TMC MP and former father-in-law of the petitioner – Supreme Court orders transfer of investigation to the CBI to ensure impartiality and credibility of the process – Held: Politically charged atmosphere in West Bengal necessitates independent investigation [Paras 1-36].

Factual Matrix – Allegations of Victimization – Petitioner, a practicing advocate and BJP spokesperson, alleged political harassment by respondent No. 7 – Petitioner’s house and CISF personnel were attacked by TMC supporters – FIRs registered against the petitioner following the incident – Local police accused of bias due to respondent No. 7’s influence as a ruling party MP – CISF counter affidavit corroborated attack on petitioner and resistance by CISF personnel [Paras 6-20].

Legal Principles – Transfer of Investigation – Supreme Court highlights that investigation must not only be fair but also appear credible – Transfer of investigation to an independent agency like CBI warranted in exceptional circumstances involving high-profile individuals or potential bias of local authorities – Held: Credibility of justice system requires transfer when politically influential individuals are involved [Paras 28-32].

Role of CISF and Conflicting Interests – CISF personnel allegedly involved in the incident – Local police deemed unsuitable to investigate the CISF’s conduct due to conflicting interests – Held: Independent investigation by the CBI is appropriate to examine CISF’s role impartially [Paras 35].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Investigation into FIRs transferred to the CBI – State directed to hand over all records to the CBI for completion of investigation and potential trial – Held: Transfer necessary to ensure fair investigation and justice in a politically sensitive case [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Lack of Cogent Proof – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal - The appellant was convicted for murder and other offenses based on circumstantial evidence, including allegations of motive, discovery of skeletal remains, and DNA profiling. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any credible evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The alleged motive was unsubstantiated, the discovery of skeletal remains was not properly proved, and the DNA profiling report was inconclusive. Conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted [Paras 19-35].

Section 27, Indian Evidence Act – Discovery and Recovery – Standards of Proof – The alleged disclosure and subsequent recovery of skeletal remains were not proved as per legal standards. Neither the Investigating Officer nor witnesses corroborated the accused's involvement in the discovery. Consequently, the alleged recovery cannot be treated as incriminating evidence against the appellant [Paras 25-33].

DNA Evidence – Procedural Gaps – DNA Profiling Report Invalid - The prosecution failed to establish that the blood samples used for DNA profiling were collected from the mother of the deceased. This critical procedural lapse rendered the DNA evidence inadmissible as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant [Paras 34].

Decision: Supreme Court quashed the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. The appellant was acquitted of all charges due to lack of credible evidence. The Court directed that the appellant, currently in custody, be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Service Law - Liberalised Family Pension – Classification of Death – Army Order 1 of 2003 – Appeal Dismissed - The respondent sought Liberalised Family Pension after her husband's death, initially classified as a 'battle casualty' but later changed to 'physical casualty.' The Tribunal found the death occurred due to extreme climatic conditions during Operation Rakshak near the Line of Control, falling under Clause 1(g) of Appendix 'A' to Army Order 1 of 2003 and Category E(f) of the Liberalised Family Pension Scheme. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, noting the deceased was on duty under extreme conditions, classifiable as a 'battle casualty' [Paras 7-11].

Applicability of Category E(f) – Death in War-like Situations – Inclusive Definition – The Supreme Court held that Clause (f) of Category E applies when death results from war-like situations, an inclusive category not limited to sub-clauses (i) to (iii). The death near the Line of Control was due to war-like conditions, justifying the respondent's claim under the Liberalised Family Pension Scheme [Paras 11-12].

Costs Imposed on Appellants – Lack of Sympathy – The Court criticized the appellants for dragging the respondent, a widow, through litigation despite the clear classification of her husband’s death as a 'battle casualty.' Costs of ₹50,000 were imposed, payable within two months [Para 13].

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Armed Forces Tribunal's judgment directing the appellants to grant the respondent a Liberalised Family Pension and an ex-gratia lump sum. The directions were to be implemented within three months. Costs of ₹50,000 were awarded against the appellants, to be paid within two months.