Service Law – Pay Revision – Revised Pay Rules, 2017 – Employees in Service on Cut-off Date – Appellants attained age of superannuation in March 2016 – By virtue of FR 56(a), date of retirement extended to 31.03.2016 – Rules of 2017 applicable to employees in service on 31.03.2016 – Held: Appellants were in service on the cut-off date and entitled to revised pay scales – Division Bench judgment denying benefit set aside [Paras 2–3, 15–16, 18].

Service Jurisprudence – Superannuation – Fundamental Rule 56(a) – Date of Retirement – FR 56(a) mandates retirement on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which employee attains age of superannuation – No concept of deemed severance on date of attaining age of 60 years – Continuance till last day of the month is full continuation in service and not merely for pay and allowances [Paras 10–11, 16].

Pension – Last Working Day – Rule 5(2), CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Day of retirement treated as last working day – Employees retiring on superannuation deemed to be in service on that day – Appellants therefore in service on 31.03.2016 and entitled to pay revision applicable on that date [Paras 14–16].

Precedent – Coordinate Bench Decision – K. J. George v. BSNL – Limited Applicability – Observation that extension under FR 56(a) is only for pay and allowances not accepted – Court declined reference to Larger Bench as Three-Judge Bench decision in S. Banerjee v. Union of India supports entitlement of benefits accruing on date of retirement [Paras 10, 12–13].

Distinction of Earlier Cases – K. J. George v. BSNL and Union of India v. G.C. Yadav – In both cases employees retired prior to date of pay revision – Present case distinguishable as appellants retired on the very date on which revision applied – Hence precedents not applicable [Paras 8–9, 13].

Interpretation of Pay Revision Rules – Rule relating to Pensioners – Provisions revising pension of those retired on or before 31.03.2016 intended as minimum safeguard – Cannot curtail right of employees who were in service on 31.03.2016 to revised pay – Rules of 2017 clear and unambiguous in granting benefit to those in service on cut-off date [Paras 15–17].

Relief – Pay and Pension Refixation – Appellants entitled to revised pay for March 2016 – Revised pay to be reckoned for pension computation – Arrears of pay and pension directed to be paid within six months – Interest at 6% payable in case of delay – Revised pension to commence from February 2026 [Para 18].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Division Bench set aside – Judgment of learned Single Judge restored – Appellants held entitled to pay revision as on 31.03.2016 with consequential pensionary benefits.

Criminal Law – Withdrawal of Prosecution – Permission from High Court Mandatory – Appellant, a former MLA, challenged criminal proceedings arising from FIRs under Arms Act and IPC – State had issued orders to withdraw cases citing public interest, and Public Prosecutor filed withdrawal application before trial court – Held: As per Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, no prosecution against sitting/former MP/MLA can be withdrawn without leave of the High Court – In present case, no such permission was obtained – Hence, trial court and High Court rightly declined to quash the proceedings [Paras 2–5, 10].

Section 321 CrPC – Judicial Function of Granting Consent – Court reaffirmed that even though withdrawal is initiated by Public Prosecutor, the court must ensure that such application is not to thwart justice – Public Prosecutor must form an independent opinion – Consent must subserve public interest and not be tainted by mala fides or extraneous purposes – Cited principles from State of Kerala v. K. Ajith and Ram Naresh Pandey – Emphasised High Court’s duty to judicially scrutinise such withdrawal applications concerning MPs/MLAs [Paras 6–9].

Public Prosecutor’s Role – Duty to Assist with Reasons – Held: Prosecutor must disclose all reasons for withdrawal to court – Mere good faith is insufficient – Courts must ensure the application is not an abuse of process – Reasons are essential to both administrative and judicial decision-making [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s rejection of petitions under Section 482 CrPC upheld – No permission having been obtained from High Court as required – Proceedings to continue as per law – Observations on merits expressly kept open for trial/discharge stage [Para 10].

PIL - Disability Rights – Reasonable Accommodation – Civil Services Examination – Visually impaired candidates sought permission to use screen reader-enabled laptops and modify scribe details closer to exam date – Supreme Court held that such accommodations are essential to uphold Articles 14 and 21 – UPSC directed to permit change of scribes up to 7 days before exam and decide requests within 3 working days – Commission to submit a roadmap and timeline for screen reader software rollout after infrastructure and testing completion [Paras 2-5, 9-11].

Assistive Technology – Screen Reader Software – UPSC acknowledged lack of infrastructure for immediate implementation but made in-principle decision to enable screen reader use in future exams – Court directed coordination with NIEPVD and DEPwD to standardise protocols and ensure implementation from next examination cycle [Paras 6-8, 10-11].

Equal Opportunity – Exam Accessibility – Court held that denial of assistive accommodations violates fundamental rights and undermines inclusive public recruitment – Mandated that UPSC ensure accessibility while maintaining integrity and fairness of exam process – Implementation not an act of benevolence but constitutional obligation [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directions issued to UPSC and Union of India to ensure timely, inclusive implementation of accessibility measures in future exams – Matter to be listed on 16/02/2026 for compliance affidavit [Paras 11-16].

Criminal Law – Sentence Reduction – Compromise – Appellants convicted under Section 326 IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act for assault and property damage – Sentenced to five years and two years respectively (to run concurrently) – High Court affirmed conviction and sentence – In appeal before Supreme Court, compromise entered between parties – Appellants had already undergone 2 years and 3 months in custody – Held: While maintaining conviction, sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 4-11].

Criminal Procedure – Limited Notice on Sentence – Supreme Court issued notice confined to quantum of sentence – No interference with conviction – Court exercised discretion to reduce sentence considering compromise and substantial sentence already served [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Conviction upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants ordered to be released immediately, if not wanted in any other case [Paras 11-12].

Muslim Law – Post-divorce Property – Section 3 of 1986 Act – Return of Dower and Gifts – Appellant claimed ₹17.67 lakhs including ₹7 lakhs and 30 bhories of gold under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act – Trial court decreed partial return – High Court reversed, relying on father’s statement that amount was given to husband – Supreme Court held: High Court erred in discounting registrar’s testimony and final acquittal in 498A case – Entitlement under Section 3 includes all property given at marriage regardless of to whom it was given – Appeal allowed – Respondent directed to pay amount [Paras 3–10]

Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial Legislation – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Must be construed to promote dignity, autonomy, and equality of divorced Muslim women – Court emphasized social context and purposive interpretation in light of Daniel Latifi – Held: Interpretation must be grounded in realities of patriarchal structures, especially in rural areas – Equality and social justice must guide application of Section 3 [Para 9]

Evidence Law – Contradiction Between Oral and Documentary Evidence – Discrepancy in two marriage certificates (Exhibits 7 & 8) and between testimony of registrar and father – High Court preferred father’s statement from prior 498A proceedings – Supreme Court held such evidence loses value post-acquittal and cannot outweigh registrar’s record – Registrar’s explanation of clerical error credible – Findings of lower court restored [Paras 4.5–8]

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 227 – High Court’s interference with concurrent findings of lower courts – Court held such superintendence must not be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or substitute plausible view – High Court’s intervention unjustified – Order set aside [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Respondent directed to remit ₹7 lakhs and 30 bhories of gold (or equivalent monetary value) to Appellant – Payment to be made within 6 weeks with compliance affidavit – Interest @9% per annum if delayed.

Criminal Law – Discharge – Section 227 CrPC – Discharge granted – Appellant accused of restraining complainant from entering a property during a civil dispute and capturing her photos – High Court upheld dismissal of discharge – Supreme Court held that strong suspicion necessary for framing charges must be based on legally admissible material – Observed that complainant refused to make any judicial statement – Chargesheet lacked supporting evidence – Held: Allegations did not constitute offences under Sections 341, 354C, or 506 IPC – Discharge allowed [Paras 14-27].

Criminal Law – Section 354C IPC – Voyeurism – Ingredients not satisfied – No allegation in FIR that complainant was engaged in a ‘private act’ as defined under statute – FIR and chargesheet silent on essential ingredients – Held: Allegation of photographing complainant in public space without consent does not meet threshold for voyeurism [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law – Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation – FIR lacked any specific threat or utterance of injury to person or property – No statement recorded from complainant or witnesses – Held: Bare allegation of intimidation without details cannot attract offence under Section 506 IPC [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Section 341 IPC – Wrongful restraint – Complainant failed to establish any legal right to enter the premises – No evidence of tenancy – Complainant was only a prospective tenant – Obstruction by accused made in good faith under protection of civil court’s injunction order – Held: Offence under Section 341 IPC not made out [Paras 23-26].

Criminal Justice System – Abuse of Process – Filing of Chargesheets without Strong Suspicion – Court cautioned against mechanical filing of chargesheets and framing of charges where no prima facie case exists – Emphasised need to avoid clogging judicial system with trials destined for acquittal – Held: Prosecution must have reasonable prospect of conviction to proceed – Otherwise, fair process compromised [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Appellant discharged from G.R. Case No. 223 of 2020 arising from FIR No. 50 of 2020 – No offences under Sections 341, 354C, 506 IPC made out.

Taxation Law - Excise Duty – Exemption – Use of Power – Clubbing of Units – Appellant sought to deny exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE to Unit No.1 alleging that entire manufacturing process, including stages at Unit No.2, involved power – Supreme Court held that even if units are separate entities, when their processes are integrally connected and collectively lead to manufacture, exemption is not available – Clubbing justified [Paras 11–13]

Manufacture – Definition – Integrated Process – Manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act includes all integral processes – Bleaching and mercerizing at Unit No.1, followed by squeezing and stentering at Unit No.2, and final bailing/packing at Unit No.1, formed one continuous manufacturing chain – Held: Use of power at any stage disqualifies exemption [Paras 10–12]

Interpretation of Notification – Beneficial Construction – Exemption Notification to be strictly construed – Since stentering process used power and was essential to final product, exemption not applicable – CESTAT erred in ignoring cumulative processing and focusing only on formal separation between units [Paras 10–13]

Retraction of Statements – Evidentiary Value – Statements of partners recorded during inspection were retracted six months later – Commissioner rightly held retractions were afterthoughts – CESTAT’s reliance on retracted affidavits erroneous [Para 4]

Judicial Review – Scope under Section 35-L(b) – CESTAT’s finding ignoring binding precedents and factual integration of processes not a “possible view” – Justified interference by Supreme Court – Order-in-Original restored [Paras 6, 13–14]

Decision: Appeals allowed – CESTAT judgment dated 05.10.2011 set aside – Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise restored – Respondents held liable for duty, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Slum Rehabilitation – Preferential Right of Owner – Conflict between prior developer and subsequent purchaser of land declared as slum area – Appellant sought mandamus for acquisition of subject property under 2015 CEO-SRA order – Held: As per Tarabai and Saldanha Real Estate rulings, acquisition under Section 14 cannot proceed unless owner’s preferential right is extinguished – Alchemi Developers, having purchased the property and proposed a valid scheme, retains such right – Mandamus declined [Paras 70–72, 77(1)]

Urban Planning – Recreational Ground Reservation – Subject land reserved for RG under 1991 Development Plan – Injunction order in Citispace v. State of Maharashtra restrained any slum schemes on RG lands till March 2022 – No acquisition action taken during this period – Held: Delay of seven years and subsequent transfer to lawful purchaser renders appellant’s demand for acquisition untenable [Paras 65–66, 68–71]

Slum Scheme – Rehabilitation and FSI – Appellant’s predecessor had included 34 slum dwellers from the subject land in its Annexure II – CEO-SRA in 2015 directed they be treated as Project Affected Persons (PAPs) – Appellant granted and utilized FSI equivalent to their rehabilitation – Held: Developer fully compensated and not entitled to further claims over land or FSI [Paras 41, 75, 77(3)]

Occupation Certificate – Entitlement Conditional on Handover – Respondent-SRA clarified that OC for final sale building would be issued upon handing over the dark green portion (2700 sq. mts.) as RG – Supreme Court directed SRA to issue OC within four weeks of such handover – Held: Appellant has no obligation to hand over subject land excluded from scheme [Paras 73–74, 77(2)]

Developer Conduct – Attempt at Backdoor Entry – Developer failed to act on 2015 order for seven years – Did not purchase land or perfect title – Slum dwellers already relocated – Held: Appellant cannot claim rights merely by rehabilitating slum dwellers without legal title – Rights now vest with Alchemi Developers as lawful owner [Paras 22–24, 69–72]

Land Use – Prohibition on Construction – Subject land to be used only as Recreational Ground – Statement by SRA confirmed no construction permitted – Court directed Alchemi Developers not to construct and to maintain land as RG – Order binding on successors and assigns [Paras 76, 77(4)]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No mandamus for acquisition – Appellant entitled to OC only upon handing over 2700 sq. mts. RG land – Subject property to remain RG with no construction – Appellant fully compensated via FSI – No costs.

Land Acquisition – Compensation under National Highways Act – Applicability of First Schedule of 2013 Act – NHAI sought fresh clarification on applicability of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Court held that its earlier clarification dated 23.09.2022 already conclusively applied sub-clause 4.6(iii)(b) of 2017 Guidelines to the landowners – No further clarification warranted; parties must abide by previous orders [Paras 5–6].

Scope of Clarification – When Prior Clarification Already Provided – Court reiterates that its 23.09.2022 order had unambiguously held that where award under Section 3G was passed before 01.01.2015 but amount was deposited after 01.01.2015, compensation must align with First Schedule of 2013 Act – Present application unnecessary and not maintainable [Paras 5–6].

Interpretation of 2017 Guidelines – Clause 4.6(iii) – Three sub-clauses cover distinct situations – They are not cumulative – Case of landowners squarely fell under sub-clause (b) (award issued earlier; full amount deposited later) – NHAI’s attempt to reopen settled clarification rejected [Para 5].

Binding Effect of Tarsem Singh Judgment – Benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 of the Land Acquisition Act extended to NH acquisitions – Section 3J declared unconstitutional to that extent – Earlier Supreme Court orders already directed statutory benefits to be given – No further adjudicatory exercise required [Para 5].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application dismissed – No further clarification required – Parties to strictly abide by Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 23.09.2022 – No costs [Paras 6–7].