Regularization of Part-Time Employees – Entitlement and Policy – Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or permanent status as they are not working against sanctioned posts. The Supreme Court reiterates that regularization can only occur as per the State/Government's regularization policy and not as a matter of right. The High Court's direction to create and sanction posts was deemed beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution【Paras 8, 8.4-8.8】.

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Part-Time vs. Full-Time Employees – The Court clarifies that part-time temporary employees cannot claim parity in salary with full-time regular employees under the principle of equal pay for equal work. The High Court's observation that part-time workers must have worked full days is unsupported by evidence and deemed speculative【Paras 8.4, 8.6】.

Judicial Review – Limitations on Policy Decisions – The Court emphasizes that policy formulation and creation of posts are the sole prerogatives of the government. The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the government to reformulate its policy and create posts for regularization of part-time employees【Paras 8.3, 8.4】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's directions to reformulate the policy and sanction posts. However, it upheld the direction granting minimum basic pay to part-time workers who completed 20 years of service, as previously indicated in the interim order【Paras 8.9, 9】.

Suo Motu Jurisdiction of NGT – Legislative Intent and Interpretation – The Supreme Court held that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in the discharge of its functions under the NGT Act. The Court emphasized that the NGT Act, when read as a whole, provides the NGT with the leeway to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament’s intention was to create a multifunctional body capable of addressing environmental exigencies and fostering public interest in the environmental domain【Para 20-21】.

Environmental Justice and Equity – Role of NGT – The Supreme Court underscored the importance of environmental justice and equity, recognizing the NGT as a sui generis institution. The NGT’s role extends beyond resolving disputes; it includes taking preventative, ameliorative, and remedial actions to address environmental issues. The Court highlighted the need for the NGT to act proactively to protect the environment for present and future generations, adhering to the principles of environmental justice and sustainable development【Para 27-27.3】.

Procedural Flexibility – Ensuring Effective Environmental Governance – The Court ruled that the NGT must have the flexibility to address environmental damage and resultant climate change without waiting for a formal application to be filed. The NGT’s powers include taking suo motu cognizance of matters based on communications, media reports, or other sources, ensuring that environmental protection is not hampered by procedural constraints. The exercise of suo motu jurisdiction must adhere to principles of natural justice, providing affected parties an opportunity to be heard【Para 25.1-25.8】.

Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the NGT’s power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction in the discharge of its functions under the NGT Act. It recognized the NGT’s responsibility to address environmental concerns proactively and to act in the public interest, ensuring environmental protection and sustainable development. The appeals were decided in favor of allowing the NGT to operate with the broad powers envisaged by the statute【Para 21.4, 27.3, 25.8】.

Income Tax Act – Section 263 – Period of Limitation for Revisional Orders – The Supreme Court clarifies that under Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, the period of limitation for making an order is two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The term "made" is used in Section 263(2), not "received" or "dispatched." Therefore, the date of receipt by the assessee is irrelevant for calculating the limitation period【Para 4.3】.

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Literal Rule – The Court emphasized that statutory provisions should be read as they are, without adding or subtracting anything. The term "made" should be interpreted literally to mean the date the order is passed by the Commissioner, not the date it is received by the assessee【Para 4.3】.

High Court’s Error – Misinterpretation of Section 263(2) – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interpreting the provision of Section 263(2) by considering the date of receipt of the order by the assessee as the relevant date for determining the period of limitation. This interpretation adds a requirement not present in the statute【Para 4.3, 5】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was within the prescribed period of limitation. The judgment of the High Court, which held otherwise, was set aside【Para 5】.

Deficiency in Service – Onus of Proof – The Supreme Court held that the onus of proving deficiency in service lies with the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Without proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof shifts only after the complainant establishes a prima facie case of deficiency【Para 19-20】.

Responsibility of Certification Agencies – Scope and Limitations – The Court found that the appellant, a certification agency, was responsible only for certifying the quality, quantity, and packaging of the consignment at the time of loading. There was no contractual obligation for the appellant to ensure that the product specifications remained the same at the destination port. The presence of disclaimers in the certificates further exempted the appellant from liability for changes during transit【Para 23-25】.

Adverse Inference – Absence of Evidence – The Court noted that the complainant did not produce the best evidence available, such as test results of the samples sent to the destination port. Without such evidence, the appellant could not be held liable for any alleged deficiency. The Commission erred in drawing adverse inferences against the appellant without concrete proof of negligence at the time of loading【Para 22-24】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellant was not responsible for changes in the product specifications after loading, given the absence of any contractual clause or proof of negligence【Para 26】.

Illegal Possession of Sandalwood Oil – Presumption of Culpability – The Supreme Court held that the Kerala Forest Act's presumption of culpability under Section 27 requires the prosecution to prove that the accused knowingly possessed forest produce illicitly removed from a reserved forest. The High Court erred in holding that mere possession automatically implies culpable mental state without further proof of illicit origin【Paras 23, 28】.

Proof of Legitimate Procurement – Burden of Proof – The appellant provided documentation of the legitimate purchase of red oil used to produce sandalwood oil. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the oil was sourced illegally. The burden of proving the foundational facts giving rise to the presumption under Section 69 of the Act rests with the prosecution, which was not adequately discharged in this case【Paras 22, 25-27】.

Interference with Acquittal – Appellate Court’s Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court emphasized that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court’s acquittal unless there are compelling reasons. The High Court’s reversal of the acquittal was unjustified, as it misinterpreted the presumption under Section 69 and failed to establish the necessary mens rea for conviction under Section 27(1)(d) of the Act【Paras 29-30】.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the Sessions Court's acquittal of the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act was quashed【Para 30】.

Service Law – Employment in Police Force – Criminal Antecedents – The Supreme Court held that a person acquitted of charges involving moral turpitude or where witnesses turn hostile does not automatically entitle them to employment in a disciplined force like CISF. The employer has the right to consider the nature of the acquittal and criminal antecedents under the guidelines issued by the Screening Committee【Paras 8, 22】.

Honourable Acquittal – Definition and Implications – The Court clarified that "honourable acquittal" means an acquittal based on a finding that the accused was falsely implicated, or the prosecution could not prove the guilt. An acquittal on benefit of doubt or technical grounds does not qualify as honourable. The employer can decide on the candidate's suitability based on the nature of the acquittal【Paras 11-14, 18】.

Role of Screening Committee – Final Decision on Suitability – The Standing Screening Committee’s role in evaluating candidates with criminal antecedents was emphasized. Its decisions are final unless proven mala fide. The Committee is tasked with ensuring that only individuals with impeccable character and integrity join the police force【Paras 20-21】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The respondent’s appointment was deemed invalid due to the nature of his acquittal and his criminal antecedents, which did not meet the stringent requirements for joining the CISF【Para 23】.

Compassionate Appointment – Interpretation of Rule 5 – Suitable Post – The Supreme Court held that a dependent/applicant cannot seek appointment on a higher post than what was held by the deceased employee merely based on eligibility criteria. The Court emphasized that 'suitable post' under Rule 5 must be linked to the post held by the deceased employee, and the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family rather than a regular recruitment process based on qualifications【Para 10.2】.

Object and Purpose of Compassionate Appointments – The Court reiterated that the objective of compassionate appointments is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis due to the death of the breadwinner, and not to provide a higher post to the dependent based on their educational qualifications. This aligns with the humanitarian intent behind such appointments, ensuring that the family can sustain itself【Paras 9-10, 10.2】.

High Court’s Misinterpretation – Setting Aside – The Supreme Court found that the High Court misinterpreted Rule 5 by holding that a 'suitable post' means any post suitable to the qualifications of the candidate. This interpretation was contrary to the purpose of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, which aim to provide immediate employment to help the family survive financially【Paras 11-12】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was restored, which had dismissed the respondent's claim for a higher post based on qualifications【Para 12】.

Electricity Dues – Limitation Period under Section 56 – Recovery and Disconnection – The Supreme Court held that the negligence on the part of the licensee leading to short billing initially, followed by rectification, does not fall under the negligence covered by Section 56(1). Consequently, claims made by the licensee after detecting their mistake may not fall within the prohibition of Section 56(2) regarding the recovery of dues beyond the two-year period from when the sum became first due【Paras 25-26】.

First Due Date and Demand – Commencement of Limitation – The Court clarified that the term "first due" means the date on which the bill is issued, and the period of limitation for recovering dues begins from this date. If no bill is raised, there can be no negligence on the consumer's part to pay, and the limitation period under Section 56(2) does not start running【Paras 12-16, 26】.

Deficiency in Service – Consumer Forum's Jurisdiction – The Court emphasized that raising an additional demand due to a mistake in billing does not amount to a deficiency in service. As long as the consumer does not dispute the correctness of the short assessment claim, it cannot be considered a deficiency. The National Commission correctly categorized it as "escaped assessment" rather than a deficiency【Paras 20-21】.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the National Commission's order that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the licensee. The appellant was given eight weeks to pay the balance amount, as they had already paid 50% of the demand pursuant to an interim order【Para 27】.

Locus Standi of Interested Party – Section 3(b) of Land Acquisition Act – The Supreme Court held that the appellant, Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Limited, can be considered a 'person interested' under Section 3(b) if it is established that the appellant has a direct interest in the compensation awarded. The Court emphasized that the determination of 'person interested' should consider the liability to pay the enhanced compensation【Para 8】.

Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Challenging Reference Court Award – The Court ruled that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 to challenge the Reference Court’s award, particularly when the appellant had a remedy to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, subject to obtaining leave from the High Court. The appropriate remedy for the appellant was to file an appeal with an application for leave to appeal【Para 8, 9, 11】.

Maintainability and Entertainability of Writ Petition – The distinction between maintainability and entertainability of a writ petition was underscored. The Court noted that while the writ petition might be maintainable, the High Court should exercise its discretion judiciously and prefer not to entertain such petitions when alternate statutory remedies are available【Para 9】.

Judicial Discipline and Consistency – The Supreme Court criticized the learned Single Judge of the High Court for not adhering to the Division Bench’s earlier decision, highlighting the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and consistency. The judgment by the learned Single Judge, which contradicted the Division Bench’s ruling, was found to be untenable【Para 13, 14】.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2021, upholding the Division Bench’s decision that set aside the learned Single Judge’s order. The Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 5857-5880 of 2021, quashing the learned Single Judge’s order that set aside the Reference Court’s awards in 24 references. The proceedings before the Executing Court were restored, directing the Executing Court to proceed further with the execution petitions, subject to any stay granted by the Appellate Court and further orders by the High Court【Para 12, 16】