Retirement Age – Revision of Pension – High Court held that the appellant was wrongfully retired at 58 instead of 60 – High Court denied salary/back wages for extra two years due to delay in approaching – High Court ordered revised pension payable from January 1, 2020 – Supreme Court modified this, holding denial of arrears of pension unjustified – Appellant entitled to revised pension from date of attaining age 60 [Paras 1-4].

Pension Arrears – Continuous Cause of Action – Supreme Court emphasized that pension is a continuous cause of action – Denial of arrears by High Court was without justification – Arrears to be paid from date of appellant attaining 60 years [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s order denying arrears of pension and setting revised pension payable only from January 1, 2020, quashed – Appellant entitled to revised pension from the date he attained 60 years – Arrears to be paid within four weeks – No order as to costs [Para 4].

Land Acquisition – Deemed Lapse – High Court held acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court reversed High Court’s decision – Clarified Section 24(2) applies only when authorities fail to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more – Compensation deposited in treasury valid – Exclusion of period covered by interim orders for computing five years – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-5].

Section 24(2) – Proviso to Section 24(2) forms part of the main section – No new cause of action for challenging concluded proceedings – Period of interim orders excluded in computation of five years – Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority case applicable – High Court’s reliance on overruled precedent erroneous [Paras 4-4.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order quashed – Acquisition proceedings valid – No order as to costs [Paras 5].

Pay Fixation – Re-employment – High Court held that respondent, a retired Major, should have his basic pay fixed at par with his last drawn pay in the Armed Forces upon re-appointment in the Central Reserve Police Force – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that Para 8 of the CCS Order does not grant entitlement to pay protection based on last drawn pay – Pay on re-employment to be fixed with reference to the minimum scale of the civil post, not exceeding last drawn pay in Armed Forces [Paras 1-6].

Central Civil Services Order – Interpretation – Para 8 – Supreme Court emphasized that Para 8 provides for advance increments based on years of service in the Armed Forces, but does not mandate fixing pay at the last drawn rate in the Armed Forces – The reference to last drawn pay is to ensure the computed pay in the civil post does not exceed it [Para 5.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Writ petition by respondent dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 6].

Pension Scheme – Applicability – High Court held that respondent, the widow of a deceased employee, was entitled to family pension under the Old Pension Rules – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that employees appointed or absorbed after 31.08.2005 are governed by the New Contributory Pension Scheme, which does not provide for pension/family pension – Absorption in government service does not retroactively apply old pension rules [Paras 1-7].

Family Pension – New Contributory Pension Scheme – The Supreme Court emphasized that the corrigendum issued clarified that prior service before absorption would not be treated as government service – Thus, the respondent's husband, absorbed in government service from 02.03.2009, was subject to the New Contributory Pension Scheme [Para 6].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments quashed – Respondent not entitled to family pension under Old Pension Rules – Respondent governed by New Contributory Pension Scheme – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Bail – High Court granted bail to respondent-accused based on parity – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Emphasized that bail should not be granted mechanically and must consider the nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and prima facie involvement of the accused – Highlighted the need for reasoned orders reflecting judicial discretion and application of mind [Paras 30-39].

Cancellation of Bail – Parameters – Supreme Court underscored the importance of considering relevant factors such as criminal history, material evidence, and the seriousness of charges – Stressed that bail granted on untenable grounds or overlooking significant details can be cancelled even without supervening circumstances [Paras 30-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Respondent-accused's bail cancelled – Directed to surrender within one week – Observations limited to bail cancellation and not to influence the trial court’s final adjudication [Paras 40-42].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Rules – High Court dismissed appellant’s plea for appointment under 1990 Rules, directing consideration under 2020 Rules – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, appellant entitled to appointment under 1990 Rules prevailing at the time of the father's death and initial application – Held that delays attributable to the department should not disadvantage the applicant [Paras 6-7].

Compassionate Appointment – Delays by Authorities – Emphasized that applications for compassionate appointments must be considered promptly, ideally within six months – Directed authorities to ensure timely, fair, and reasonable consideration to avoid frustrating the policy's purpose [Paras 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Respondents directed to consider appellant's application under the 1990 Rules – Decision to be made within four weeks – Appellant to receive benefits from the date of appointment only – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Public Service – Promotion and Direct Recruitment – Applicability of Rules – Appeals challenging the High Court's directive to fill vacancies as per the old rules – High Court applied the principle from Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, holding vacancies arising prior to rule amendments should be filled by old rules – Supreme Court reviews and restates the principle, emphasizing no vested right to promotion under old rules without specific statutory provisions – Appeals allowed, reversing High Court's directive [Paras 1-24].

Doctrine of Pleasure – Constitutional Provision – Status of Public Servants – Discusses Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Constitution – Highlights the public policy behind the doctrine of pleasure, maintaining that public servants hold office during the pleasure of the President or Governor, subject to statutory rules – Explains the legal relationship of status over contract, allowing unilateral rule changes by the government [Paras 6-20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Supreme Court clarifies that vacancies arising before the amendment of recruitment rules do not necessarily follow old rules unless explicitly stated – Sets aside High Court's order, directing compliance with new recruitment rules for vacancies arising post-amendment.

Insurance Claim – Stolen Vehicle – Technical Grounds for Denial – The insurance company refused to settle the claim due to the non-submission of the duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce because the details were locked by the RTO following the theft report. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company should not have become too technical and refused the claim on such grounds, as the appellant had provided all possible documentation within his control [Paras 4-4.1].

Deficiency in Service – Insurer's Obligation – The Court found the insurer's refusal to settle the claim arbitrary and a deficiency in service, emphasizing that insurance companies should not reject claims on flimsy or technical grounds, especially when the claimant has valid insurance and has paid the premium [Paras 4-4.1].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Commission, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowing the insurance claim for Rs. 12 lakhs with 7% interest from the claim submission date. The insurer was also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs to the appellant within four weeks [Para 5].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b). The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) occurs if, due to the inaction of authorities for five years or more before the commencement of the Act, neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid. Depositing compensation in the treasury instead of the court does not invalidate the acquisition. [Paras 3-3.1]

Taking Possession and Payment of Compensation – Once an award is passed and possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State with no provision for divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Compensation tendered as per Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act completes the obligation, even if it is not deposited in the court. [Paras 3-3.1]

Reviving Stale Claims – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not provide a new cause of action to challenge the legality of concluded proceedings or revive time-barred claims. It applies to ongoing proceedings as of January 1, 2014, but does not reopen concluded proceedings. [Paras 3-3.1]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, holding that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed. The writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners was dismissed. [Paras 4]