Promotion – Relaxation in Qualifying Service – High Court directed the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion, permissible under Rule 4 of the 2006 Rules – Supreme Court held that relaxation under Rule 4 is discretionary, not a right – The term "MAY" in Rule 4 indicates the authority's discretion – High Court erred in issuing writ of mandamus to compel the grant of relaxation – Eligibility lists prepared in accordance with Rule 5(iii) and Rule 8(iii) of the Rules, 1990 were correct – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-8].

Discretionary Power – Mandamus – The court emphasized that relaxation in qualifying service cannot be claimed as a right – Authorities' discretion cannot be overridden by mandamus unless there is a failure to exercise discretion lawfully – High Court's command to grant relaxation was inappropriate [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Eligibility lists excluding respondents were valid – Writ petition by original writ petitioners dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Land Ceiling – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained code providing for appeal and revision before designated authorities – Civil courts lack jurisdiction to try suits related to land under ceiling proceedings – Orders by competent authorities under ULC Act are final and cannot be declared illegal or non est by civil courts – High Court erred in affirming the lower courts’ judgments granting relief to the respondent [Paras 1-15].

Possession and Utilization – ULC Act Compliance – Competent authority's orders declaring surplus land became final – Possession taken by conducting panchnama, respondent signatory as a witness – Land utilized for public purpose, construction of houses for slum dwellers – Civil court's decree declaring possession not taken is erroneous [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of the lower courts and High Court set aside – Suit filed by respondent dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Succession – Interpretation of Will – The First Appellate Court found that the will's recitals clearly conveyed full ownership to the testator's wife, which the High Court erroneously reversed by incorrectly applying Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered as the First Appellate Court's findings were not perverse and were final on matters of fact and law [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Interference – High Court's Role – The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC by reevaluating factual findings without identifying any substantial question of law – The First Appellate Court’s judgment was based on a correct interpretation of the will, granting full ownership, which the High Court wrongly assessed under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and decree set aside – The suit filed by the appellant along with Smt. Shevantabai decreed as prayed for as per the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 22.01.1992 – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Respondent no. 2, Nishant Solanki, claimed juvenility at the time of the incident dated 05.05.2020 – High School marksheet indicated his date of birth as 25.09.2004 – Sections 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, mandates presumption of juvenility unless reasonable grounds for doubt exist – Application for medical test dismissed, with reliance placed on documentary evidence [Paras 1-11].

Procedure and Evidence – Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 – Outlines the procedure for age determination: (i) School/matriculation certificate, (ii) Birth certificate from municipal authority or panchayat, (iii) Ossification test or other medical age determination tests – The age recorded by the JJ Board deemed to be true for the purposes of the Act [Paras 22-24, 47-48].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Orders of the High Court, District Court, and JJ Board affirmed – Respondent no. 2 declared a juvenile at the time of the incident based on valid documentary evidence – No merit in the appeal [Paras 49-50].

Public Interest Litigation – Res Judicata – Summary dismissal of earlier petition under Article 32 does not bar the present writ petition – Court must be cautious in applying res judicata in matters of grave public interest – High Court's error in allowing the writ petition without substantive adjudication on merits [Paras 1-13, 26-35].

Disinvestment – Strategic Public Sector Undertakings – Petitioners argued that disinvestment of HZL without amending the Nationalisation Act, 1976, violated legal provisions and public interest – Court held disinvestment decision made in accordance with legal procedures and government policy – No express or implied bar in Nationalisation Act against such disinvestment – Union Government’s decision to disinvest residual shareholding in HZL upheld [Paras 1-15, 36-48].

CBI Enquiry – Closure of Preliminary Enquiry – Petitioners challenged the closure of CBI's preliminary enquiry into disinvestment process – Court found CBI followed due procedure as per CBI Crime Manual – Closure of preliminary enquiry upheld [Paras 49-53].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Court upheld the Union Government's decision to disinvest its residual shareholding of 29.54% in HZL – CBI’s closure of preliminary enquiry into disinvestment process affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 54].

Motor Accident – Compensation – Future Economic Loss – Deceased was a 21-year-old student – Tribunal assessed future economic loss at Rs.15,000 per month; High Court reduced it to Rs.5,000 – Supreme Court held the income should be considered at Rs.10,000 per month, with a 40% addition for future prospects – Multiplier of 18 applied based on deceased’s age, not parents’ age – Claimants entitled to Rs.15,12,000 for future economic loss, plus Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs.40,000 for loss of love and affection – Total compensation awarded at Rs.15,82,000 with 7% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till realization [Paras 1-12].

Legal Principle – Future Prospects – Even if the deceased was not earning at the time of death, their legal heirs are entitled to future prospects by adding future rise in income as per Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 – Standardisation principle applied to ensure just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.15,82,000 with interest at 7% per annum – Enhanced amount to be deposited with MACT and invested in fixed deposit for parents with periodic interest entitlement [Paras 13-15].

Pension – Social Security Measure – Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, framed under Section 3-E of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 – Pension considered deferred compensation for long service – Employee opted for 90% pension during lifetime – Widow entitled to lump sum payment equal to 100 times the full monthly pension on employee’s death – High Court dismissed petition citing lack of territorial jurisdiction – Supreme Court directed computation and disbursement of due pension amount to appellant [Paras 1-14].

Territorial Jurisdiction – High Court's Error – High Court dismissed writ petition and LPA on grounds of territorial jurisdiction without considering entitlement on merits – Supreme Court found employment of appellant’s husband with respondent employer undisputed – Appellant litigating for over a decade to secure pension benefits [Paras 6, 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Sum due under Pension Scheme to be computed and disbursed to appellant – Amount earlier refunded to be adjusted during remittance process – Respondent to comply within 8 weeks [Paras 13-14].

Compassionate Appointment – Policy Applicability – Deceased employee died on 08.10.2015 while serving as a work charge employee – Policy at the time provided Rs. 2 lakhs compensatory amount but no compassionate appointment – Subsequent policy dated 31.08.2016 allowed compassionate appointments for work charge employees – Supreme Court held the claim must be decided based on the policy in force at the time of the employee's death – Subsequent policy not applicable – Appeal allowed, High Court’s order quashed [Paras 1-4].

Policy Interpretation – Precedent – Court emphasized adherence to policy in effect at the time of death for compassionate appointments – Subsequent amendments cannot be retroactively applied – Referenced Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729; State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s direction for appointment under subsequent policy quashed – Respondent not entitled to compassionate appointment under policy dated 31.08.2016 – Compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, if refunded, to be paid to the respondent [Paras 5].

Sexual Assault – Definition and Interpretation – High Court's interpretation of Section 7 of the POCSO Act requiring "skin-to-skin" contact for sexual assault is incorrect – Supreme Court held the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 is the "sexual intent" and not the "skin-to-skin" contact – Words "touch" and "physical contact" used interchangeably in the statute – Act of touching sexual parts of the body or any other act involving physical contact with sexual intent amounts to "sexual assault" – High Court's narrow interpretation defeats the object of the Act [Paras 1-13, 28-38].

Legal Principles – Rule of Construction – The construction of a rule should give effect to the rule rather than destroy it – Principle of "ejusdem generis" should not be applied to defeat legislative intent – Interpretation should suppress the mischief and advance the remedy [Paras 28-38].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgments quashed and set aside – Accused convicted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and relevant sections of the IPC – No separate sentences imposed for other IPC offences due to conviction for major offence under POCSO Act – Accused directed to surrender within four weeks [Paras 44-47].