Disability Pension – Territorial Army – Appellant, a former soldier of the Territorial Army, claimed disability pension for injury sustained while on leave – AFT dismissed the claim citing separate terms and conditions for Ecological Task Force (ETF) – Supreme Court held members of Territorial Army entitled to same pensionary benefits as Regular Army personnel unless inconsistent with specific regulations – AFT’s decision quashed; appellant entitled to disability pension [Paras 1-24].

Right to Equality – Unconscionable Contracts – Conditions denying enhanced pension for ETF members held unreasonable and unfair – Disparity in bargaining power between Union of India and an individual soldier – Courts will not enforce unfair and unreasonable contract terms imposed on weaker parties – Principles from Central Inland Water Transport Corporation case applied [Paras 22-23].

Statutory Rules vs. Internal Communication – Statutory rules and regulations prevail over internal communications between state organs – Injury sustained by appellant found attributable to military service by Medical Board and Court of Inquiry – Internal communications denying pension cannot override statutory entitlement [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – AFT judgment set aside – Respondents directed to grant disability pension to appellant from January 1, 2012 – Arrears to be paid within three months with 9% interest per annum [Paras 24-26].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Approval Requirements – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against appellant without specific approval of charge memorandum by the Disciplinary Authority – Rule 14(3) of CCS (CCA) Rules requires independent approval for initiating enquiry and for drawing up charge memorandum – Ex-post facto approval given during pending proceedings deemed inadequate – Charge memorandum without initial approval is non est in law [Paras 1-16].

Procedural Fairness – Independent Application of Mind – Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 14 necessitate independent application of mind by Disciplinary Authority at each stage – Approval at initiation stage does not substitute for approval at charge memorandum stage – Tribunal's direction for issuing fresh charge memorandum upheld [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Review – Validity of Charges – High Court erred in distinguishing B.V. Gopinath's case – Charge memorandum lacking prior approval remains legally void – Fresh memorandum of charges to be issued within two months if department proceeds [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Principal Bench of CAT judgment restored with modification – Department directed to issue fresh charge memorandum within two months if proceeding continues [Paras 17-18].

Disability Rights – Disciplinary Proceedings – Appeal against disciplinary proceedings initiated due to appellant's mental disability – High Court’s Division Bench set aside the enquiry report and restored the proceedings to evidence stage – Appellant’s mental disability not the sole cause of alleged misconduct, considered indirect discrimination – Section 47 of PwD Act mandates protection and reasonable accommodation for disabled employees – RPwD Act’s Section 20 further reinforces these protections – Orders set aside; Appellant entitled to reassignment or supernumerary position [Paras 1-14, 99-101].

Indirect Discrimination – Mental Disabilities – Appellant’s mental disability considered a significant factor in misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings against mentally disabled employees as indirect discrimination – Disability impairs compliance with workplace standards, leading to disproportionate disadvantage – Protection under RPwD Act affirmed – Court mandates individualized assessment for reassignment without control over hazardous equipment [Paras 98-102].

Reasonable Accommodation – Section 20(4) RPwD Act – Requirement for reassignment to suitable post with same pay and benefits – Supernumerary post provision if reassignment not feasible – Affirmed principles of non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation for disabled employees – Ensuring safety and inclusion within CRPF framework [Paras 100-101].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Disciplinary proceedings quashed – Appellant entitled to protections under disability legislation – CRPF directed to reassign appellant or place in supernumerary post as per Section 20(4) of RPwD Act [Para 102].

Insolvency Law – Commercial Wisdom of CoC – NCLAT's interference with CoC's decision challenged – CoC approved Ngaitlang Dhar’s resolution plan through transparent and equitable procedure – NCLAT erred in setting aside CoC’s decision – Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities should not interfere with CoC’s commercial decisions except on limited grounds under Sections 30(2) or 61(3) of IBC – Appeal allowed; NCLAT’s order set aside [Paras 1-38].

Judicial Review – Material Irregularity – No material irregularity in CoC and RP’s procedure – RP acted transparently, giving equal opportunity to all bidders – NCLAT’s interference based on alleged procedural irregularities not justified – Judicial review limited to ensuring no procedural impropriety under IBC framework [Paras 20-34].

Commercial Wisdom – Scope and Limits – CoC’s decision based on commercial wisdom non-justiciable except on specified grounds – Dominant purpose of IBC is revival and continuation of the Corporate Debtor as an ongoing concern – Ensuring adherence to timelines critical to CIRP’s success [Paras 31-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – NCLAT’s order quashed – CoC’s approval of Ngaitlang Dhar’s resolution plan reinstated – No order as to costs [Para 38].

Dowry Death – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC – Prosecution's case based solely on circumstantial evidence – No eye-witness testimony on how the deceased's body was found on the riverbank – Two hypotheses: (1) deceased killed within the home and body disposed in the river; (2) deceased taken to the river alive and drowned – Second hypothesis supported by post-mortem showing no ante-mortem injuries – Evidence suffices to convict husband but not mother-in-law – Conviction of husband upheld, mother-in-law acquitted [Paras 1-23].

Dowry Death – Legal Presumptions – Sections 304B IPC and 113B Indian Evidence Act – Establishing dowry death requires showing cruelty/harassment related to dowry soon before death – Presumption of guilt against husband and in-laws if dowry demands and cruelty are proven – Presumption rebuttable by the accused [Paras 12-17].

Reasonable Doubt – Mother-in-law's Acquittal – Omnibus allegations against mother-in-law insufficient – No specific evidence or testimony implicating her directly – Conviction of mother-in-law set aside – Husband's conviction maintained based on consistent evidence of dowry demands and harassment [Paras 18-23].

Decision: Appeal of husband (A-1) dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld – Appeal of mother-in-law (A-3) allowed; conviction set aside, directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 23].

Professional Misconduct – Disposal of Complaints – Bar Councils directed to decide complaints within one year as mandated under Section 36B of the Advocates Act – Bar Councils have a duty to uphold standards of professional conduct – Complaints not disposed of within a year to be transferred to Bar Council of India – Emphasis on timely and efficient resolution of complaints to maintain the integrity of the profession [Paras 1-16].

Duty of Bar Councils – Sentinels of Professional Conduct – State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India must ensure high standards of professional conduct and etiquette – Failure to dispose of complaints within stipulated time seen as shirking responsibility – Guidelines to be issued for regular meetings and possible empanelment of Inquiry Officers for expeditious disposal of complaints [Paras 7-14].

Judicial Review – Procedural Lapses – Dismissal of complaint on procedural grounds without considering merits criticized – Importance of procedural fairness and timely action highlighted – Directions to address backlog and procedural inefficiencies in disciplinary proceedings [Paras 3-8].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with directions – Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils directed to ensure complaints are decided within one year – Mechanism suggested for quick disposal including empanelling Inquiry Officers – Complaint of appellant subsequently disposed of by State Bar Council; no further orders required [Paras 15-16].

Service Law – Pay Parity – Daily rated employees not entitled to higher pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 with consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years – Board's adoption of State Government resolutions crucial for applicability – Financial viability and economic capacity significant factors in wage determination – Posts and salary complex matters best left to expert bodies – Appeals dismissed; pay parity claims rejected [Paras 1-18].

Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work – Limitations on applicability – Court intervention in pay scales to be cautious – Economic viability of the employer paramount – Daily rated employees of statutory boards not on par with state government employees – Policy decisions on pay scales subject to board’s discretion [Paras 13.4-13.7].

Judicial Review – Discrimination Claims – Article 14 does not support claims to perpetuate mistakes – Board’s error in extending benefits inadvertently corrected – Financial implications and cascading effect considered – High Court's decision to set aside Single Judge’s ruling upheld [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Gujarat High Court's Division Bench upheld – Daily rated employees not entitled to benefits from 1991 and 1992 Government Resolutions – Benefits under parent Resolution of 1988 to continue [Para 18].

Land Acquisition – Notification under Section 48(1) – Notification for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 takes away individual’s property rights, while a Notification under Section 48(1) confers benefits – Such notifications do not warrant notice or hearing to landowners – If anyone is aggrieved, it would be the beneficiary of the acquisition (Parishad) – Appeals allowed, High Court's order set aside, and writ petitions dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Landowners obtained Notification under Section 48(1) by making false representations – Once the land was released, they started selling it, contradicting their earlier claims of religious sentiments and cemeteries – Notifications secured by fraud do not confer vested rights and can be rescinded [Paras 15, 24-25].

General Clauses Act, Section 21 – Power to issue Notification includes power to rescind – Notification under Section 48(1) is administrative, not quasi-judicial, allowing application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act – Government can rescind such Notifications without fresh acquisition process [Paras 10, 20-23].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Parishad may proceed to implement the public purpose for which the land was acquired – No order as to costs [Para 27].

Burden of Proof – Full and Final Settlement – Defendants admitted receipt of Rs. 1,050,000/- and partial repayment of Rs. 500,000/-, claimed it as full and final settlement – No written proof of settlement – Oral evidence of mediators insufficient without documentary evidence – Defendants failed to prove the onus of settlement – Plaintiff entitled to recovery despite discrepancies in her evidence [Paras 16-18].

Unauthorized Withdrawals – Business Dealings – Plaintiff alleged unauthorized withdrawals and transfers totaling Rs. 5,450,000/- by defendants – Defendants claimed amounts as investments in real estate business and partially as gratuitous payment – Defendants failed to produce business accounts to justify the amounts – Affidavit claiming gratuitous payment lacked plaintiff's signature and contradicted claims of settlement – Defendants' plea of gratuitous payment and full settlement not credible [Paras 19-24].

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 70 – Non-gratuitous Acts – Defendants admitted receipt of money from plaintiff – Failed to prove payment was gratuitous – Defendants bound to compensate plaintiff for the amounts received and benefits enjoyed under Section 70 [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and decrees set aside – First Appellate Court’s judgment and decrees restored – Plaintiff entitled to costs of Rs. 50,000/- – Amount deposited by appellant with interest to be released to her [Para 28].