Pension Scheme – Applicability – High Court held that respondent, the widow of a deceased employee, was entitled to family pension under the Old Pension Rules – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that employees appointed or absorbed after 31.08.2005 are governed by the New Contributory Pension Scheme, which does not provide for pension/family pension – Absorption in government service does not retroactively apply old pension rules [Paras 1-7].

Family Pension – New Contributory Pension Scheme – The Supreme Court emphasized that the corrigendum issued clarified that prior service before absorption would not be treated as government service – Thus, the respondent's husband, absorbed in government service from 02.03.2009, was subject to the New Contributory Pension Scheme [Para 6].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments quashed – Respondent not entitled to family pension under Old Pension Rules – Respondent governed by New Contributory Pension Scheme – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Bail – High Court granted bail to respondent-accused based on parity – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Emphasized that bail should not be granted mechanically and must consider the nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and prima facie involvement of the accused – Highlighted the need for reasoned orders reflecting judicial discretion and application of mind [Paras 30-39].

Cancellation of Bail – Parameters – Supreme Court underscored the importance of considering relevant factors such as criminal history, material evidence, and the seriousness of charges – Stressed that bail granted on untenable grounds or overlooking significant details can be cancelled even without supervening circumstances [Paras 30-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Respondent-accused's bail cancelled – Directed to surrender within one week – Observations limited to bail cancellation and not to influence the trial court’s final adjudication [Paras 40-42].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Rules – High Court dismissed appellant’s plea for appointment under 1990 Rules, directing consideration under 2020 Rules – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, appellant entitled to appointment under 1990 Rules prevailing at the time of the father's death and initial application – Held that delays attributable to the department should not disadvantage the applicant [Paras 6-7].

Compassionate Appointment – Delays by Authorities – Emphasized that applications for compassionate appointments must be considered promptly, ideally within six months – Directed authorities to ensure timely, fair, and reasonable consideration to avoid frustrating the policy's purpose [Paras 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Respondents directed to consider appellant's application under the 1990 Rules – Decision to be made within four weeks – Appellant to receive benefits from the date of appointment only – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Public Service – Promotion and Direct Recruitment – Applicability of Rules – Appeals challenging the High Court's directive to fill vacancies as per the old rules – High Court applied the principle from Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, holding vacancies arising prior to rule amendments should be filled by old rules – Supreme Court reviews and restates the principle, emphasizing no vested right to promotion under old rules without specific statutory provisions – Appeals allowed, reversing High Court's directive [Paras 1-24].

Doctrine of Pleasure – Constitutional Provision – Status of Public Servants – Discusses Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Constitution – Highlights the public policy behind the doctrine of pleasure, maintaining that public servants hold office during the pleasure of the President or Governor, subject to statutory rules – Explains the legal relationship of status over contract, allowing unilateral rule changes by the government [Paras 6-20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Supreme Court clarifies that vacancies arising before the amendment of recruitment rules do not necessarily follow old rules unless explicitly stated – Sets aside High Court's order, directing compliance with new recruitment rules for vacancies arising post-amendment.

Insurance Claim – Stolen Vehicle – Technical Grounds for Denial – The insurance company refused to settle the claim due to the non-submission of the duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce because the details were locked by the RTO following the theft report. The Supreme Court held that the insurance company should not have become too technical and refused the claim on such grounds, as the appellant had provided all possible documentation within his control [Paras 4-4.1].

Deficiency in Service – Insurer's Obligation – The Court found the insurer's refusal to settle the claim arbitrary and a deficiency in service, emphasizing that insurance companies should not reject claims on flimsy or technical grounds, especially when the claimant has valid insurance and has paid the premium [Paras 4-4.1].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Commission, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowing the insurance claim for Rs. 12 lakhs with 7% interest from the claim submission date. The insurer was also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs to the appellant within four weeks [Para 5].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b). The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) occurs if, due to the inaction of authorities for five years or more before the commencement of the Act, neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid. Depositing compensation in the treasury instead of the court does not invalidate the acquisition. [Paras 3-3.1]

Taking Possession and Payment of Compensation – Once an award is passed and possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State with no provision for divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Compensation tendered as per Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act completes the obligation, even if it is not deposited in the court. [Paras 3-3.1]

Reviving Stale Claims – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not provide a new cause of action to challenge the legality of concluded proceedings or revive time-barred claims. It applies to ongoing proceedings as of January 1, 2014, but does not reopen concluded proceedings. [Paras 3-3.1]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, holding that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed. The writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners was dismissed. [Paras 4]

Service Law – Judicial Review – High Court’s Scope – The High Court's role in judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is not to act as an appellate court over departmental enquiries. It is confined to examining whether the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, following prescribed procedures, and ensuring natural justice was not violated. The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings supported by some evidence [Paras 7-7.3].

Departmental Enquiry – Evidence and Findings – The disciplinary authority's findings, based on substantial evidence including witness testimonies and documents, concluded the respondent was guilty of preparing a fraudulent letter to withdraw Rs. 10 lakhs. The High Court erred in reassessing this evidence and setting aside the dismissal, as there was sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary authority's decision [Paras 7.1-7.3, 8].

Criminal Acquittal vs. Departmental Proceedings – An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically invalidate findings in departmental proceedings. The standards of proof differ, and an acquittal on benefit of doubt does not negate the guilt established in a disciplinary enquiry [Para 9].

Proportionality of Punishment – Given the seriousness of the misconduct, involving misappropriation of Rs. 10 lakhs and fabricating documents, the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate and proportionate. The disciplinary authority's decision to dismiss the respondent was justified and warranted [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and reinstated the disciplinary authority’s order dismissing the respondent from service [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Applicability of MCOCA – The High Court upheld the invocation of MCOCA against the appellant, who was involved in multiple cases of organised crime with the objective of gaining pecuniary and other advantages. The Supreme Court confirmed that the organised crime activities included violence, threats, and other unlawful means, satisfying the requirements under Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA [Paras 14-17].

Satisfaction of Sanctioning Authority – Proper Consideration – The sanctioning authority applied its mind to all relevant aspects, confirming that the activities of the accused, including the appellant, were part of an organised crime syndicate involved in continuing unlawful activities as defined under MCOCA. The Court found no discrepancy or irrelevant factors considered in the sanction order [Paras 16-17.5].

Strict Interpretation of Penal Statutes – The Court reiterated that while MCOCA provisions must be strictly construed, such construction should not render the statute impracticable. The interpretation should ensure the statute’s purpose is fulfilled, especially in combating organised crime [Paras 12-12.7].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and the sanction order, concluding that the invocation of MCOCA was justified and the procedural requirements were duly met [Para 17.5].

Criminal Law – Cognizability of Offence under Copyright Act – High Court held offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as non-cognizable, thus quashing criminal proceedings. Supreme Court overturns this, asserting the offence is cognizable and non-bailable. The punishment extends up to three years; thus, it falls under cognizable offences per Part II of the First Schedule of Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-7].

Application of Part II, First Schedule, Cr.P.C. – For offences punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards, the offence is cognizable. The High Court erred in interpreting the statute and prior Supreme Court precedents [Paras 5.2-6].

Quashing of FIR – Judicial Interpretation – High Court's quashing of FIR under Section 63 deemed incorrect by Supreme Court. Supreme Court mandates continuation of proceedings, categorizing the offence as cognizable and non-bailable, contradicting High Court's ruling [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's judgment quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings set aside. FIR and proceedings to continue per law, recognizing the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as cognizable and non-bailable [Para 7].