Constitutional Law – Transfer Policy – Protection of Family Life – State's responsibility to consider the preservation of family life as part of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy under Article 21 – Supreme Court emphasized that in formulating transfer policies, the State must not be oblivious to the importance of family life – Policies should account for the necessity of maintaining family life without compromising administrative requirements [Paras 1-7].

Service Law – Judicial Review of Transfer Policies – The court's jurisdiction to review transfer policies is limited – Policies must be consistent with constitutional values, particularly Article 21 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the withdrawal of Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs) was valid and did not violate constitutional provisions – High Court's judgment sustained, affirming that the transfer policy is within the State's domain provided it considers family life in accordance with Article 21 [Paras 7-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – State directed to ensure that transfer policies respect family life under Article 21 [Para 12].

Service Law – Seniority – Compassionate Appointments – High Court correctly assigned seniority to compassionate appointees vis-à-vis direct recruits – Seniority list of Assistant Engineers published as on 1st January 2004 in conformity with Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 – Compassionate appointees regularized from the date of initial appointment or w.e.f. 16th July 1993 – Seniority of compassionate appointees upheld [Paras 1-41].

Compassionate Appointments – Legal Validity – Despite the Supreme Court's judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) restricting compassionate appointments to Class III and IV posts, the State of Tamil Nadu continued to make appointments in Class II posts until 2006 – Compassionate appointees, having served for over two decades, not to be disturbed – Seniority list upheld as appointments were in accordance with prevailing Government Orders [Paras 31-45].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Seniority list as on 1st January 2004 upheld – Seniority assigned to compassionate appointees maintained – Adverse comments on Government’s policy, but no changes to seniority [Paras 46-47].

Land Acquisition – Compensation and Deduction – Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 19.03.1999 for acquiring land for Defence Security Forces – Land Acquisition Officer assessed market value at Rs. 687,837/- per acre, Reference Court enhanced it to Rs. 965,000/- per acre – High Court further increased it to Rs. 1,130,000/- per acre after a 50% deduction on sale instances – Supreme Court held 50% deduction excessive, reduced to 40%, resulting in a fair market value of Rs. 1,354,200/- per acre [Paras 2.1-8].

Location and Size Considerations – Location of acquired land abutting National Highway No. 21 – Sale instances pertain to smaller plots compared to the acquired lands – A deduction of 40% considered appropriate to account for differences in size and location [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Market value of acquired lands fixed at Rs. 1,354,200/- per acre – Landowners entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation – Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 1805-1806 of 2022 not entitled to interest for 1033 days delay but eligible for solatium [Paras 7-8].

Family Law – Divorce and Maintenance – Parties married in 1998 and separated since 2002/2004 with a daughter born in 2001 – Appellant filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was dismissed – Respondent accused appellant of dowry demands and harassment – High Court reversed trial court’s dismissal of divorce petition on grounds of desertion – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to grant divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage considering prolonged separation and failure of reconciliation attempts [Paras 1-26].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Supreme Court recognized the impossibility of reconciliation given the long separation and mutual acrimony – Court invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage to do complete justice between the parties [Paras 12-18].

Financial Settlement – Appellant's financial status reviewed, including salary and property holdings – Court determined that respondent, living with her brother, lacked means – Permanent alimony of Rs. 1,000,000/- fixed to be paid by the appellant, considering the educational and future needs of the daughter if supported by the respondent [Paras 20-25].

Decision – Decree of divorce granted on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Appellant to deposit Rs. 1,000,000/- as permanent alimony within two months – Civil appeal allowed with parties to bear their own costs [Paras 26-27].

Contempt Law – Jurisdiction and Executability – Supreme Court emphasizes that contempt jurisdiction can be invoked irrespective of whether the order or decree is executable – Contempt is a matter between the Court and the contemnor, and the executability of the order pertains to the parties inter-se – Non-compliance of court orders having serious implications [Paras 13.1-13.3].

Wilful Disobedience – The Court found the respondents guilty of wilful disobedience of the High Court's conditional stay order and subsequent Supreme Court orders requiring the deposit of awarded amounts – Arguments of financial incapacity and procedural objections by respondents rejected as afterthought and lacking bona fides – Contempt proceedings justified given respondents' repeated failure to comply despite extensions and opportunities [Paras 8-17].

Decision – Respondents, particularly respondent No. 1, found guilty of civil contempt – Suitable punishment to be determined after hearing respondents on the sentence [Para 17].

Constitutional Law – Declaration of Municipal Board – High Court set aside notification for Gram Panchayat Roopbas declaring it as a Municipal Board due to lack of a public notification under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution – Supreme Court held the High Court misinterpreted the scheme of Part IXA and Article 243Q – The Constitutional Amendment does not diminish the legislative competence of State Legislatures but ensures the strengthening of governance at all three levels – Two separate notifications under Article 243Q and Section 5 of the Municipalities Act not required – High Court's order erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 8-23].

Municipal Law – Legislative Competence – Section 5 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act is not inconsistent with Article 243Q of the Constitution – State Government’s power to establish a municipality affirmed – Supreme Court reiterated that notifications under Section 5 alone suffice for establishing municipalities, and additional notification under Article 243Q not mandated [Paras 16-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – State Government’s notification upheld – Writ petition dismissed [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Bail – Respondent no. 2 accused under Section 302 IPC – Bail application twice rejected by Trial Court, subsequently granted by High Court – Appellant contends long-standing rivalry, immediate pre-incident scuffle, and fatal attack orchestrated by respondent no. 2 and his son – High Court's order granting bail lacked cogent reasons and disregarded severity and context of offence – Allegations of threats to deceased's family post-bail also raised [Paras 2-4].

Judicial Discretion in Bail – High Court must provide cogent reasons when granting bail, especially if lower courts denied bail – Seriousness of the offence, prima facie evidence, and post-bail conduct crucial considerations – High Court's failure to address these aspects in the bail order renders it unsustainable [Paras 9-14].

Cancellation of Bail – Reviewing principles from precedents: Courts must be satisfied of prima facie case, without detailed evidence examination; High Courts must provide reasons for bail, particularly in serious offences – Missteps in granting bail can warrant appellate intervention [Paras 10-13].

Decision – High Court's bail order set aside – Appeal allowed – No costs [Paras 14-16].

Reservation Law – Interchangeability of Vacancies – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging non-interchangeability of unfilled SC/ST vacancies to OBC – Petitioners argued based on Policy letter No. 17246 allowing such interchangeability – High Court dismissed the petition based on government's decision to re-advertise unfilled posts – Supreme Court upheld the decision, finding no error in non-interchangeability under Section 7 of the 2006 Act [Paras 1-21].

Legal Framework and Policy Interpretation – Differentiation between Section 7 of the 2006 Act and Policy letter No. 17246 – Section 7 restricts de-reservation by appointing authority, allowing it only by Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes – Policy letter No. 17246, though restored, does not contravene the Act – No right to interchangeability established for appellants based on incorrect departmental rejection [Paras 15-20].

Procedural Considerations – Appellants' reliance on outdated merit lists and procedural missteps by the department – Court found no justification for granting relief based on outdated lists – Process to fill vacant posts already re-advertised [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – No relief granted for interchangeability of SC/ST vacancies to OBC vacancies – High Court's dismissal upheld [Paras 21].

Succession Law – Revocation of Letters of Administration – Grant of Letters of Administration under a Will deed challenged for not citing all legal heirs – Section 263 states just cause for revocation includes defective proceedings and grants made without citing necessary parties – High Court revoked the grant on this basis – Supreme Court upheld the decision, finding no error [Paras 1-8].

Procedural Requirements – Difference between Sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act highlighted – Section 276 pertains to probate and Letters of Administration with the Will annexed; Section 278 pertains to Letters of Administration generally – Just cause for revocation under Section 263 overrides distinctions in procedural requirements between these sections [Paras 3-6].

Illustrative Statutory Provisions – Explanation and illustrations under Section 263 provide specific scenarios constituting just cause for revocation – High Court correctly applied these provisions to find just cause in the case [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's order revoking Letters of Administration upheld [Para 8].