Vacancy Position in District Judiciary – Examination of vacancy positions and recruitment processes in the States of Jharkhand, Karnataka, and Kerala – Detailed analysis of vacancies, recruitment procedures, infrastructure, and manpower – Directions issued to expedite recruitment and infrastructure development. [Para 1-14]

Infrastructure – Construction and Development of Court Rooms – Status of ongoing projects and pending proposals – Directions for expeditious completion and approvals – Monitoring of progress. [Para 6-9]

Manpower – Vacancies in Judicial Staff – Examination of vacant positions and proposals for creation of posts – Directions for filling vacancies and finalizing pending proposals – Monitoring of recruitment process. [Para 12-14]

Interlocutory Applications – Withdrawal of Interlocutory Applications – Permission granted for withdrawal. [Para 15-18]

Jurisdictional Overreach of Lokayukta – Upa Lokayukta’s order for correction in revenue records and tax collection – Held as exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 12 of the 1999 Act, which only allows recommendations to remedy injustice or hardship, not issuing direct orders. [Paras 5, 7, 9-11, 13]

Revenue Record Correction – Original complaint by respondent No. 1 for correction of error in revenue records – Request declined by Additional Tehsildar, no further legal remedy pursued by respondent before approaching Lokayukta. [Paras 4, 8, 12]

Precedent on Lokayukta’s Powers – Reference to Kerala High Court judgments in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector and District Collector v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, affirming Lokayukta’s recommendatory jurisdiction, not supervisory or appellate authority over statutory bodies. [Para 9, 10]

High Court and Upa Lokayukta Orders Set Aside – Supreme Court sets aside orders of High Court and Upa Lokayukta, deems them legally unsustainable due to jurisdictional overreach. Respondent No. 1 advised to seek appropriate legal remedy for correction of revenue records under relevant statutes. [Paras 13, 14]

Property Dispute - Challenge to Sale Deed - Suit filed by the appellant's predecessor-in-interest against the first sale deed registered in favor of another party - Allegations of minor's property being sold without court permission and for the minor's need and welfare - Trial Court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the first Appellate Court, but reversed by the High Court in Second Appeal. [Para 1-4]

Date of Birth - Discrepancy in the appellant's date of birth - High Court relied on oral evidence, while the appellant produced a certificate from Doon School showing the date of birth as 16.08.1951 - Suit's timeliness under Section 80 C.P.C. disputed - High Court's reliance on oral evidence questioned. [Para 9-10]

Ownership of Property - Lack of documentary evidence to establish the appellant's right to the property in question - Challenge to a sale deed registered in 1956 after 16 years - Absence of transfer in the appellant's name - Suggestion of a possible attempt to extract additional money from the State, which had purchased the property from the first buyer. [Para 10-11]

Property Sale Consideration - Property potentially sold for the child's education and welfare - Consideration mentioned in the second sale deed at ₹14,784/- - Burden of proof on the plaintiff challenging a sale transaction entered into 16 years prior. [Para 11-12]

Protection of Sale Transaction - Reference to Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the State's claim of due diligence in the sale transaction - Lack of evidence presented by the plaintiff to rebut the State's position. [Para 13]

Dismissal of Appeal - No grounds for interference in the present appeal found - Appeal dismissed. [Para 15]

Lease Agreement and Wrongful Occupation – The property, originally leased to the appellants by predecessors of ATM Constructions, was subject to legal disputes post lease expiry on 31.12.1997. ATM Constructions sought possession and later, damages for wrongful occupation from 01.01.1998 till 31.12.2019, and future damages from 01.01.2020 till possession was handed over in June 2022. [Paras 3, 5, 9]

Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – The appellants sought rejection of the plaint claiming the suit for damages was not maintainable as it was filed after a suit for possession without claiming damages. The High Court dismissed this application. [Paras 2, 6, 10]

Distinct Causes of Action – The Court held that suits for possession and for damages for use and occupation are based on distinct causes of action. The second suit for damages is therefore maintainable. [Paras 16-17]

Time-Barred Claims – The appellants can contest if part of the claim in the suit is time-barred, but the entire claim cannot be deemed as such. [Para 17]

Distinguishing Previous Judgments – The Court distinguished the case from Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, noting the difference in the causes of action in both scenarios. [Para 18]

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and holding that the suit for damages for wrongful occupation is maintainable. [Para 19]

Rejection of Suit in High Court's Review - Challenge to High Court's order allowing review application, which led to the dismissal of the suit for specific performance based on MoU dated 31.08.1998 - Application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. by respondent No. 1 granted, dismissing appellant's suit. [Paras 2, 4]

Facts of the Case - Dispute regarding the sale of property under MoU between appellant and respondent - Initial injunction suit filed by appellant due to respondent's attempt to sell the property, despite pending litigation among respondent's family members - Subsequent suit for specific performance filed by appellant upon learning about the resolution of family litigation. [Paras 3, 5, 6, 7]

Application of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. - Consideration of application under this rule limited to pleadings in the suit - High Court found error in allowing review application based on materials outside the plaint, leading to the rejection of appellant's suit. [Para 5, 8, 16, 17-19]

Earlier Suits and Current Claim - Differences in cause of action between earlier injunction suits and the present suit for specific performance - Earlier suits aimed to prevent the creation of third-party rights, while the present suit sought enforcement of MoU post-resolution of family litigation. [Paras 6, 7, 13, 14, 23, 24]

Exclusion of External Evidence in Plaint Rejection - In deciding on Order VII Rule 11(d) application, external evidence, including prior agreements and MoU, not considered - Sole reliance on averments in the current plaint. [Paras 16, 25, 26]

Decision - Appeal allowed - High Court's order in the review application set aside - Case remanded for trial, with the option for the Trial Court to treat the issue of suit maintainability as preliminary. [Para 28]

Charge Sheet Quashing – Allegations of Marital Cruelty and Dowry Demands – Appeal by Mahalakshmi & Ors. Against the charge sheet for offenses under IPC Sections 498A, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3, 4 – Allegations deemed vague and general without specific evidence against appellants.

Residency and Absence of Specific Allegations – Appellant No. 1, Mahalakshmi, residing in Canada, not in India during the alleged incidents – Appellants 2, 3, and 4 residing separately from the marital home of the complainant – Absence of specific details constituting cruelty.

Precedents on Vagueness in Allegations – References to cases emphasizing the need for specific allegations and evidence in marital cruelty cases – Kahkashan Kausar, K. Subba Rao, Rajesh Sharma, Arnesh Kumar, Geeta Mehrotra, Preeti Gupta cited.

Decision – Criminal proceedings against appellants quashed due to lack of specific allegations and evidence – Clarification that trial court may take action under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if new evidence emerges.

Civil Appeal – Promotion – Validity of M.Phil degree obtained through Distance Education – Challenge to promotion on the basis of degree validity – Single Judge of High Court directed for passing appropriate orders – Writ petition dismissed – Division Bench upheld the single judge’s decision – Appellant granted promotion with effect from 23.07.2008 – Appellant retired from service on 31.01.2018 – Question of law left open – Promotion benefits not to be disturbed. [Para 2-3]

Civil Appeal – Unjustified Higher Pay Scale – Appeal against High Court's upholding of Tribunal's decision affirming the grant of higher pay scale to respondent No. 4, an Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) at CSTT. Challenge to the legality of respondent No. 4's pay scale upgrade and the rejection of similar benefits to appellants, who were in the same cadre and performing similar duties. [Paras 1, 18, 59]

Recruitment and Promotion Rules – Application of 1980 Rules – Recruitment of appellants and respondent No. 4 as Research Assistants (later Assistant Scientific Officers) under Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1980. Analysis of qualifications, duties, and pay scale revisions relevant to appellants and respondent No. 4. [Paras 2-4, 6-8, 37-37.5]

Pay Scale Revision – Misapplication of Commission's Recommendations – Inappropriate application of Pay Commission's recommendations leading to respondent No. 4’s pay scale upgrade from ₹6500-10500 to ₹8000-13500, despite him not practicing as a doctor. The challenge to the legality and rationale behind respondent No. 4's pay scale upgrade, which was not applicable to his non-clinical role. [Paras 12-13, 20, 25, 40-43, 58]

Discrimination in Pay Scale – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Appellants’ claim for the same pay scale as respondent No. 4, based on performing similar duties under the same recruitment rules. Rejection of appellants’ claims by the Tribunal and High Court, leading to the current appeal. [Paras 14, 17, 41, 49-50, 54-55]

Judicial Scrutiny – Illegal Grant of Higher Pay Scale – Court's finding of no justification for granting the same scale to appellants as wrongly given to respondent No. 4. Directive for recovery of excess amount paid to respondent No. 4, holding him and responsible officers liable for reimbursing the exchequer. [Paras 58-60]

Decision – High Court and Tribunal Orders Quashed – Quashing of High Court and Tribunal orders justifying respondent No. 4’s benefits. Setting aside of the order granting respondent No. 4 an upgraded pay scale, without granting appellants the same scale. Directive for recovery of excess payments made to respondent No. 4. [Paras 59-61]

Prolonged Incarceration without Trial Progress – Appellant in custody since 9th April 2021, with minimal trial progress despite High Court's order for completion within six months – Only 5 out of 25 witnesses examined – Issue of prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion highlighted.

High Court's Inconsistent Bail Grant – High Court's recognition of the appellant's entitlement to bail, yet only granting interim bail for 45 days – Illegality of granting bail for limited duration when accused entitled to regular bail – High Court's practice of granting interim/short duration bail despite finding entitlement for regular bail observed in multiple cases.

Right to Liberty and Illegal Bail Orders – Granting bail for limited duration deemed illegal when the accused is entitled to bail – Such orders infringe upon the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 and impose additional burdens on the litigant.

Supreme Court's Decision – Appeal allowed – Modification of High Court's order to grant regular bail to the appellant till the final disposal of the case, maintaining the same terms and conditions as in the impugned order.