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].

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].

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].

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].

Electricity Duty – Imposition and Penalty – Appellant challenged imposition of electricity duty and penalty on supply of electricity to BSEB – High Court dismissed writ petition citing availability of alternate remedy and factual nature of dispute – Supreme Court held High Court erred in dismissing petition – Issues raised were questions of law suitable for writ jurisdiction – High Court's judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh determination [Paras 1-27].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy – High Court's discretion to entertain writ petitions despite alternate remedies – Exceptions to rule of alternate remedy include violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or legislative competence – Supreme Court emphasized principles from previous rulings on writ jurisdiction [Paras 19-24].

Legislative Competence – Tax on Electricity – Appellant argued State lacked legislative competence to tax supply of electricity to BSEB – Relied on interpretation of Entry 53 of List II in Constitution – Supreme Court directed High Court to adjudicate issue on remand [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition restored for fresh determination – No order as to costs [Paras 25-27].

Stamp Duty – Refund – Application for refund of stamp duty – Appellant sought refund due to prolonged proceedings before NCDRC – Application rejected on grounds of delay beyond six months – Supreme Court held rejection of refund application due to judicial delay violates equity and fairness – Case fit for exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution – Application for refund granted with interest [Paras 1-33].

Judicial Delay – Equity and Fairness – Litigants not to suffer due to judicial delays – Refund applications in cases involving prolonged judicial proceedings should not be rejected on the ground of delay – Principle of restitution and equity upheld [Paras 30-31].

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 47, 48, 50, and 52A of Stamp Act – Section 48's limitation period not applicable to cases outside Section 47 – Non-obstante clause in Section 52A overrides authority of adjudicating officer but not limitation provisions – Holistic interpretation required to avoid discrimination [Paras 12-27].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellant entitled to refund of stamp duty with 6% interest from 16 July 2016 until date of refund – No order as to costs [Paras 32-33].

Toll Plaza – Location and Compliance with Rules – Construction of toll plaza at 194 km of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur section of NH30 challenged – High Court directed relocation citing violation of Rule 8 of 2008 Rules – Rule 8 mandates toll plazas to be beyond 10 km from municipal or town area limits – Supreme Court found that establishment of toll plaza within municipal limits violated Rule 8 – Directions given to shift toll plaza outside specified limits [Paras 1-32].

Judicial Review – Expert Bodies – Limited judicial review on matters decided by expert bodies unless decisions are arbitrary or perverse – DPR by expert body recommended toll plaza location – Judicial deference to expert opinion provided compliance with statutory provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Toll plaza to be relocated as directed – Compliance with statutory requirements emphasized [Paras 30-32].

SARFAESI Act – Sale Notice Compliance – Appellants challenged the validity of the Second Sale Notice for not adhering to the statutory requirement of a 30-day notice period – Supreme Court held that the notice violated Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, mandating a clear 30-day notice for sale of immovable property – Court emphasized compliance with statutory provisions to protect borrowers' rights and ensure fair procedure [Paras 10-21].

Continuity of Sale Notices – Clarified that once a sale does not occur as scheduled, subsequent sales must follow fresh notice procedures – Supreme Court invalidated the sale held under the Second Sale Notice, affirming that reliance on an earlier notice for subsequent sales without fresh compliance is impermissible [Paras 19-21].

Procedural Irregularity – Importance of procedural fairness highlighted – Court reiterated principles from Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar and others (2014) regarding mandatory compliance with notice periods to protect borrowers' right of redemption and ensure transparent and fair auction processes [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Second Sale Notice and consequent sale invalidated – Directed compliance with the statutory 30-day notice requirement for any subsequent sale proceedings – Emphasized the need for adherence to procedural safeguards to ensure justice and fairness [Para 21].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Assessment – Appellants sought higher compensation based on later acquisitions – High Court upheld Reference Court's award – Supreme Court modified compensation to Rs. 28.12 per square yard – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 1-15].

Land Valuation – Comparison with Subsequent Acquisitions – Claim for higher compensation based on 1983 land acquisition rates rejected – Supreme Court held that compensation for later acquisitions not comparable due to subsequent developments and sanctioned plans – Emphasized consistency in valuation for similar time periods [Paras 13-15].

Procedural Fairness – Evidence Submission – Appellants' application to present additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC dismissed – Supreme Court upheld High Court's approach, ensuring that procedural rules were followed and factual consistency maintained [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Held – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 28.12 per square yard for land acquired in 1976 – Appellants entitled to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation – No order as to costs [Para 15].