Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Respondent's application for compassionate appointment delayed by the appellants – Respondent crossed the age of 50 years, making employment impractical – High Court awarded Rs.10 lakhs compensation – Supreme Court modified to Rs.5 lakhs due to delay caused by appellants [Paras 6-11].

Compensation for Delay – The delay in entertaining the application was attributed to the appellants – Respondent was eligible under the 1998 Scheme – Delay led to respondent being deprived of employment opportunity – Compensation awarded for the delay and deprivation of rights [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Compensation reduced to Rs.5 lakhs to be paid within four weeks – Failure to pay within stipulated time will attract interest at 9% per annum until actual payment – High Court’s judgment modified accordingly [Para 11].

Service Law – Retrospective Seniority – The High Court erroneously granted retrospective seniority to the respondent from 20.11.1985, a date when he was not borne in service – Respondent entered service only on 10.2.1996 following Supreme Court's direction – Jurisprudence in service law advises that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee is not in service – Retrospective seniority impacts those who entered service earlier – Seniority benefit can only accrue post joining service [Paras 1-11].

Legal Precedent – Seniority Determination – The latecomers cannot overtake early entrants in the service – The Court's jurisdiction in seniority matters is limited unless there's a lack of bona fides or fairness by the competent authority – Established principles from precedents such as Shitla Prasad Shukla vs. State of UP and Ors. (1986), Ganga Vishan Gujrati And Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2019), and Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v State of Maharashtra (1990) were applied [Paras 11-12].

Compassionate Appointment – The respondent was initially shortlisted for compassionate appointment but was denied due to not meeting physical standards – Appointed on Supreme Court's direction in 1996 without claims of retrospective effect – The respondent's later claim for seniority from 1985 was unjustified and delayed [Paras 2-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order granting retrospective seniority to the respondent set aside – Seniority to be counted from 10.2.1996, the actual date of joining service – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Consumer Protection – Deficiency in Service – Promised amenities not provided – Appellant failed to complete essential services in residential complex – National Commission partly allowed complaint, directed appellant to make systems operational – Appellant's appeal dismissed, and order modified for compensation payment instead of completing facilities [Paras 1-41].

Limitation – Objection to limitation overruled – Cause of action continued till services were rendered – Complaints filed within limitation period due to ongoing obligations [Paras 12-17].

Local Commissioner's Report – Reliance on independent architect's report – Findings showed incomplete and non-functional amenities – Appellant’s objections dismissed, report accepted by National Commission [Paras 18-26].

Compensation – Adequate monetary compensation awarded – Considering lapse of time and practicality, compensation substituted for physical completion of facilities – Rs. 60 lakhs with interest awarded in full settlement [Paras 28-32].

Decision – Appellant's appeal dismissed – Complainant's appeal partly allowed – Monetary compensation awarded in lieu of reliefs – Other reliefs denied due to lack of evidence or falling outside scope of National Commission [Paras 41-42].

Consumer Protection – Deficiency in Service – Insurance claim related to fire damage – Appellant claimed significant loss from fire – Insurance company's surveyor assessed lower loss – Appellant contested assessment – National Commission limited compensation to surveyor’s assessment – Supreme Court upheld National Commission's decision – Emphasis on jurisdiction limitations of Consumer Forum in technical assessment cases – No established deficiency in service by insurer – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-39].

Surveyor's Report – Weight and Assessment – Surveyor's assessment given deference – Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum does not extend to detailed re-examination of technical survey reports – Surveyor's method found justified – No arbitrariness in insurer’s acceptance of surveyor’s report [Paras 17-24, 30-39].

Discrepancies in Assessment – Appellant’s objections on volumetric analysis and weight per bale – Surveyor's method of volumetric analysis justified – Surveyor's decision to adopt lower weight per bale based on appellant’s own submissions considered reasonable [Paras 21-28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – National Commission's judgment upheld – Compensation limited to surveyor’s assessed loss – No costs [Paras 30-39].

Eviction – Unauthorized Subletting and Construction – Show cause notices issued to respondents for unauthorized subletting and construction – Orders of eviction passed and upheld by Additional District Judge – High Court allowed writ petitions challenging eviction – Supreme Court restored eviction orders – Unauthorized partnership and subletting violated license terms – Regularization policies not applicable to markets managed by New Delhi Municipal Council on behalf of Government of India [Paras 1-17].

Administrative Law – Delegated Authority – New Delhi Municipal Council managing markets as delegate of Government of India – No title or ownership transferred to Council – Policies of regularization by Union applicable, not Council's policies – Revenue generated to be used for market development only [Paras 14-16].

Policy Interpretation – Regularization and Ownership Rights – Cabinet decisions and public notices on regularization and ownership rights limited to specific markets – Baba Kharag Singh Marg Market not included – Interdepartmental communications not enforceable policies [Paras 7-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of High Court set aside – Eviction orders restored – Respondents granted time to vacate premises by 30.11.2021 [Paras 17].

Criminal Law – Cancellation of Bail – High Court granted bail to the first respondent accused of conspiracy and murder of an Intelligence Bureau officer – Allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses – Supreme Court found High Court's bail decision erroneous – Considerations for bail include seriousness of crime, evidence tampering risks, and role of accused – Bail granted to co-accused (wife) due to special circumstance of having an infant – Parity not applicable to first respondent – Bail order set aside and respondent directed to surrender [Paras 1-18].

Judicial Review – Bail Decisions – Evaluation of factors for bail – Role of accused in crime critical – High Court's oversight in assessing gravity and risks – Prior decisions on bail considerations cited – Supreme Court emphasized judicious exercise of discretion in bail matters [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order granting bail to first respondent set aside – First respondent to surrender and be taken into custody – Observations specific to bail decision, not affecting trial outcome [Paras 16-18].

Education Law – Regulation of Service Conditions – State of UP amended Regulation 101 to mandate outsourcing for non-teaching Class IV staff in aided institutions – High Court found amendment unconstitutional for violating Article 14 – Supreme Court upheld validity of the regulation – Policy decisions concerning economic efficiency and financial constraints are within executive domain – Institutions receiving aid must comply with conditions attached to aid – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-60].

Outsourcing Policy – Economic Efficiency – Outsourcing as a policy decision – Applied uniformly across all departments in the state – Presumption of constitutionality – Courts should avoid intervening in policy decisions unless manifest arbitrariness is evident – Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendations on outsourcing considered [Paras 37-53].

Minority Rights – Aided Institutions – No distinction between minority and non-minority aided institutions regarding compliance with conditions attached to grants – Article 30 rights are subject to reasonable regulations in national interest – Equal treatment between majority and minority institutions emphasized [Paras 32-35].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Regulation 101 upheld – Existing non-compliant recruits to be retained by institutions without state aid – Institutions responsible for adherence to regulations and conditions of service for outsourced staff as per Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendations [Paras 54-60].

Judicial Interpretation – Rewriting Statutory Provisions – High Court's interim order modifying Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules – High Court substituted statutory requirement of prior notice with post facto reporting within fifteen days – Supreme Court held that judicial re-drafting of legislation or delegated legislation is impermissible – Interim order set aside [Paras 1-24].

Rule of Law – Legislative Domain – Courts cannot supplant or rewrite statutory provisions – Draftsmanship is a legislative function – Judicial craftsmanship must not transgress legislative boundaries – Supreme Court emphasized separation of powers and proper roles of judiciary and legislature [Paras 20-22].

Statutory Licensing – Copyright Act – Section 31D – Statutory license regime for broadcasting literary and musical works – Prior notice requirement under Section 31D – Rule 29(4) specifies detailed requirements for notice – Interim modifications to rule deemed inappropriate by Supreme Court [Paras 8-22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's interim order dated 2 August 2021 set aside – No opinion expressed on merits of the pending writ proceedings in High Court – Expedited final disposal of writ petitions encouraged [Paras 23-24].

Voluntary Retirement – Resignation and Acceptance – Employee's resignation under MVRS accepted on 28.05.2003 – Postponement of cut-off date for administrative reasons – Employee's subsequent withdrawal of resignation on 01.07.2003 not permissible – Resignation deemed accepted and final on 28.05.2003 – Post stood abolished simultaneously with acceptance of resignation [Paras 1-47].

Provident Fund Discrepancies – Delay in resolving provident fund discrepancies did not justify withdrawal of resignation – Provident fund issue a separate administrative matter – Resignation acceptance and post-abolishment valid and binding [Paras 7-10, 32-35].

Contractual Interpretation – MVRS terms and conditions – Resignation once accepted under MVRS not revocable – Post abolishment simultaneous with resignation acceptance as per MVRS Clause 5.1 – Delay in relieving duties does not impact resignation acceptance [Paras 18-31, 39-42].

Judicial Precedents – Distinguished cases based on factual nuances – No conditional resignation under MVRS – Reliance on judgments for prospective resignation withdrawals not applicable [Paras 20-45].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Resignation deemed accepted on 28.05.2003 – Employee entitled to benefits under MVRS already paid – No reinstatement or further benefits due [Paras 46-47].