Property Law – Cancellation of Allotment – Default in Installment Payments – Appellant, a 55-year-old woman, allotted a plot under the Middle-Income Group Scheme – Made initial payments but defaulted on four installments due to husband's ill-health – Paid balance with interest before cancellation notice was served – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging cancellation – Supreme Court held that appellant's payments and willingness to pay additional compensation showed no willful delay – Cancellation order set aside on payment of additional Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation [Paras 1-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cancellation order set aside on condition of appellant paying additional Rs. 2 lakhs within six weeks – Respondents to hand over possession and execute necessary documents thereafter [Para 6].

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Respondents found guilty of contempt for not complying with Supreme Court and High Court orders – Despite multiple opportunities to settle the dispute or comply, respondents failed – Supreme Court sentenced respondent No. 1 to seven days of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs – Fine to be deposited before the High Court with Rs. 4 lakhs to the petitioner and Rs. 1 lakh to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority – Sentence kept in abeyance for two weeks to allow compliance [Paras 1-5].

Decision: Respondent No. 1 sentenced to seven days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on respondents – Sentence suspended for two weeks for compliance [Para 4].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 and Rule 11 CPC – Court has wide powers to appoint a commissioner for local investigations to elucidate any matter in dispute or to ascertain the market value of any property, mesne profits, damages, or annual net profits – Commissioners do not perform judicial acts but ministerial acts to aid the court – Court can confirm, vary, or set aside the commissioner's report [Paras 1-26].

Arbitration – Reference to Arbitration – Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – For a matter to be referred to arbitration, all parties must agree in writing and apply to the court for an order of reference – Agreement must be explicit and reflect a meeting of minds – Court cannot refer a matter to arbitration based solely on the submission of one party without the explicit agreement of the other [Paras 15-26].

Decision: Appeal Disposed of – Orders of the lower courts set aside – Chartered Accountant’s report treated as a commissioner’s report under Order 26 Rule 11 CPC, not as an arbitration award – Case remanded to trial court for reconsideration of objections to the commissioner’s report [Paras 36-37].

Constitutional Law – Education – Regulation of Fees – Section 87 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – Notification requiring unaided educational institutions to disclose income expenditure accounts and balance sheets on their websites and prohibiting them from charging any costs from parents – Supreme Court held clause (a) of the notification as substantive and not peripheral, thus ultra vires Section 87 – Clause (b) held consistent with legislative intent and valid [Paras 1-18].

Administrative Law – Power of Government – Notification under Section 87 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – Government's power to make peripheral or insubstantial changes – Substantive changes require legislative action – Enhancement of penalty amounts under Section 14 of the 2016 Act struck down as it constituted a substantive change [Paras 9-17].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Clause (a) of the notification struck down – Clause (b) upheld – Enhancement of penalty amounts under Section 14 struck down [Paras 21-23].

Service Law – Selection – Posts of Constable (General) – Appellant’s application found with incorrect and incomplete information regarding criminal antecedents – Application liable to be rejected at any stage of selection process – Supreme Court held suppression of material information in application form as ground for rejection of candidature [Paras 2-4].

Criminal Antecedents – Disclosure – Misrepresentation – Appellant did not disclose pending FIRs and criminal cases in job application – Court emphasized necessity of honesty in uniformed services – Candidate’s suppression of facts and false statement justified rejection of application [Paras 6.1-6.3].

Judicial Precedents – Relevant Cases – Reference made to past judgments highlighting suppression of material facts and misrepresentation by candidates in service applications – Previous rulings supported the decision to reject candidature based on suppression and dishonesty [Paras 6.4-6.11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Rejection of respondent’s candidature for the post of constable upheld [Para 9].

Service Law – Extension for exercising the switchover from CPF to GPF – The Pension Regulations and GPF Scheme require employees to opt for either CPF or GPF. The Supreme Court held that employees do not have an inherent right to demand an extension for exercising the switchover option [Paras 1-18].

Service Law – Pension and Provident Fund Schemes – The court distinguished between CPF and GPF, noting that they are governed by different rules. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that options once exercised under the CPF or GPF schemes are final and binding, and any subsequent extensions granted by the University were without proper authority [Paras 12-17].

Service Law – Discrimination in Pension Benefits – The court addressed claims of discrimination by employees who were denied the chance to switch over to GPF, despite some employees being granted such extensions. The Supreme Court held that allowing one set of employees to benefit from illegal extensions does not entitle others to the same benefit under the principle of "no equality in illegality" [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – The decisions of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in N.C. Bakshi batch of cases upheld. Appeal in Shashi Kiran batch of cases allowed, setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench [Para 18].

Minimum Wages – Correction of Errors – Only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected under Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The notification dated 23/24.05.2016, which fixed minimum wages including special allowance, was issued after following due procedure. The subsequent errata notification dated 14.07.2016, which attempted to change the minimum wage structure by correcting "clause (i)" to "clause (iii)", was held invalid as it did not follow the proper procedural requirements. The notification could not be modified by such an errata notification issued under the guise of Section 10​​.

Procedure – Statutory Compliance – The correct procedure for fixing or revising minimum wages involves consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board and following the steps outlined in Sections 4 and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Any modification of a notification must follow the same procedure as the original issuance, as per Section 21 of the General Clauses Act​​.

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is quashed and set aside. The errata notification dated 14.07.2016 is quashed and the original notification dated 23/24.05.2016 is restored​​.

Service Law – Cancellation of Appointment – The entire selection/recruitment process was found to be fraudulent, including manipulation in the resolution and absence of a valid resolution for the appointment. The cancellation of the appointment was upheld [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Review – Selection Process – The court held that once a selection process is found to be fraudulent and manipulated, the proper course is to order a fresh selection process rather than directing the appointment of any individual from the tainted process. Directions issued by the lower court to forward documents for appointing the original writ petitioner were found unsustainable and set aside [Paras 6.1-8].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed. The cancellation of the appellant’s appointment is upheld. The direction to appoint the original writ petitioner is quashed. A fresh selection process is ordered [Para 8].

Local Government – Elections – The process of delimitation and/or triple test compliance is continuous and time-consuming. However, the conduct of elections for installing newly elected bodies to take over from the outgoing elected representatives whose term had expired is mandated by the Constitution and relevant enactments. The State Election Commission must proceed with elections without waiting for the completion of delimitation or triple test requirements if these processes are not completed in time [Paras 15-19].

Constitutional Mandate – Term of Local Bodies – The term of local self-government is specified as five years from its first meeting and no longer. This mandate is inviolable, and all concerned must ensure that newly elected bodies are installed before the expiry of the outgoing body's term. Any delay in this process would result in a violation of the constitutional mandate [Paras 6-9].

Election Programme – Interim Order – The State Election Commission is directed to issue the election programme without further delay based on the delimitation of wards as per the previous configuration. The commission must ensure elections are conducted even if the triple test for OBC reservation is not completed, with seats notified as General Category except for those reserved for SC and ST [Paras 12-14].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The State Election Commission is directed to proceed with the election programme for the concerned local bodies based on the delimitation as per the existing wards. The State Government must support the State Election Commission in this task [Para 20].