Termination of Service – Delay and Laches – Late husband of the respondent, Rameshwar Lal, was terminated from service on 16.12.1996 – He appealed, but during pendency, he passed away in 2009 – Respondent filed a writ petition in 2012, 15 years post-termination and 13 years after he would have retired – High Court's Single Judge quashed termination and granted benefits – Division Bench confirmed – Supreme Court held writ petition barred by delay and laches – Order of termination restored [Paras 1-10].

Service Law – Termination and Superannuation – Even if the termination was set aside, deceased employee would have retired in 1999 – Benefits granted for a period post-superannuation deemed improper – High Court erred by entering into merits despite delay – Case involved clear laches barring relief [Paras 3-6].

Principles of Natural Justice – Bar Due to Laches – Merits of the termination need not be examined when writ petition is barred by delay and laches – Relief not available due to substantial delay – Single Judge’s error in adjudicating on merits when appeal should have considered delay [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgments quashing the termination and granting consequential benefits set aside – Original order of termination reinstated – No costs [Paras 6-7].

Hindu Marriage Act – Counterclaim – Section 23A permits the respondent in divorce, judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights proceedings to make a counterclaim for relief on the grounds of the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty, or desertion – Counterclaim can only include reliefs under Sections 9 to 13 of the Act – Reliefs against third parties or declarations concerning the third party's marriage are outside the scope of counterclaim under the Act [Paras 9-11].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment sought after trial commencement requires proof of due diligence – Appellant-wife's knowledge of respondent's second marriage came during cross-examination – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC applies but facts support allowance of amendment concerning knowledge post-commencement of trial [Paras 7-8].

Counterclaim for Third Party Marriage – Legal Limits – Reliefs in counterclaim must pertain to parties in the original marriage petition – Relief against third party marriage beyond Hindu Marriage Act's Section 23A scope – Independent suit necessary for declarations involving third parties [Para 9].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court's order set aside – Family Court's order restored permitting amendment of written statement as per paras 35 and 36 – Amendment for counterclaim in para 37 dismissed – Appellant can pursue independent suit for reliefs concerning third party marriage [Paras 11-12].

Government Accommodation – Retention by Retired Employees – Kashmiri Migrants – Supreme Court addresses the policy allowing retired government employees who are Kashmiri Migrants to retain government accommodation. The Court emphasizes that such occupation should not exceed three years post-retirement. It rules that indefinite retention is not justified and stresses the importance of balancing compassion with the needs of serving officers waiting for allotments​​​​.

Article 142 of the Constitution – Special Provisions – While previous judgments under Article 142 offered compassionate consideration for Kashmiri Migrants, the Supreme Court asserts that such benefits cannot be extended indefinitely. The Court highlights the necessity for the government to provide alternative arrangements, including transit accommodations or cash allowances, within a three-year period​​​​.

Arbitrary and Discriminatory Policies – Office Memorandum – The Court invalidates the Office Memorandum issued on March 28, 2017, which allowed indefinite retention of government accommodation by Kashmiri Migrants. It holds that such policies violate Article 14 of the Constitution, stressing that government housing is primarily for serving employees, not for post-retirement indefinite use​​​​.

Implementation of Rehabilitation Schemes – Pragmatic Approach – Supreme Court suggests a reasonable three-year period post-retirement for Kashmiri Migrants to secure alternative accommodations. It also addresses the government's responsibility to assist these individuals in transitioning to private housing or transit accommodations within this timeframe​​​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the applications seeking indefinite retention of government accommodation by retired Kashmiri Migrants, affirming that government housing is meant for serving employees. The Court granted a final extension to vacate the premises by November 30, 2021, with a directive for the Union to report compliance by December 15, 2021​​​​.

Wills – Validity and Suspicious Circumstances – The Supreme Court underscores that mere exclusion of a beneficiary’s siblings from a will does not inherently create suspicion unless other circumstances support such an inference. The Court affirmed the validity of Exhibit P4, a registered will, properly executed and attested by the beneficiary’s siblings, dismissing concerns raised by a forged and fabricated subsequent will (Exhibit D1)【Paras 1-27】.

Civil Procedure Code – Section 96 – Appellate Review – The appellate court’s role under Section 96 is to re-evaluate the evidence and findings of the trial court. The Supreme Court criticizes the High Court for substituting its views without sufficient reasoning and without properly addressing the trial court's findings, especially when two views are possible, advising deference to the trial court's observations unless significantly flawed【Paras 21-23】.

Evidence Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Proof of Execution – The Court highlights compliance with Sections 63 and 68 of the Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act, noting that the will (Exhibit P4) was duly executed and witnessed by credible individuals. The presence and participation of the testatrix’s relatives during the execution added credibility to the will, mitigating any suspicion【Paras 14-16】.

Order VI of CPC – Pleadings and Relief – Emphasizes the necessity for specific pleadings and the impermissibility of granting relief beyond the scope of pleadings. The Court reiterates that relief should be confined to what has been explicitly stated and proven during the trial【Paras 20】.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, restoring the trial court’s judgment which had validated Exhibit P4 and dismissed Exhibit D1 as a forged document. The appeals were allowed, affirming the appellant's title to the suit property based on the valid will (Exhibit P4)【Paras 28-30】.

Regularization of Part-Time Employees – Entitlement and Policy – Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or permanent status as they are not working against sanctioned posts. The Supreme Court reiterates that regularization can only occur as per the State/Government's regularization policy and not as a matter of right. The High Court's direction to create and sanction posts was deemed beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution【Paras 8, 8.4-8.8】.

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Part-Time vs. Full-Time Employees – The Court clarifies that part-time temporary employees cannot claim parity in salary with full-time regular employees under the principle of equal pay for equal work. The High Court's observation that part-time workers must have worked full days is unsupported by evidence and deemed speculative【Paras 8.4, 8.6】.

Judicial Review – Limitations on Policy Decisions – The Court emphasizes that policy formulation and creation of posts are the sole prerogatives of the government. The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the government to reformulate its policy and create posts for regularization of part-time employees【Paras 8.3, 8.4】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's directions to reformulate the policy and sanction posts. However, it upheld the direction granting minimum basic pay to part-time workers who completed 20 years of service, as previously indicated in the interim order【Paras 8.9, 9】.

Suo Motu Jurisdiction of NGT – Legislative Intent and Interpretation – The Supreme Court held that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in the discharge of its functions under the NGT Act. The Court emphasized that the NGT Act, when read as a whole, provides the NGT with the leeway to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament’s intention was to create a multifunctional body capable of addressing environmental exigencies and fostering public interest in the environmental domain【Para 20-21】.

Environmental Justice and Equity – Role of NGT – The Supreme Court underscored the importance of environmental justice and equity, recognizing the NGT as a sui generis institution. The NGT’s role extends beyond resolving disputes; it includes taking preventative, ameliorative, and remedial actions to address environmental issues. The Court highlighted the need for the NGT to act proactively to protect the environment for present and future generations, adhering to the principles of environmental justice and sustainable development【Para 27-27.3】.

Procedural Flexibility – Ensuring Effective Environmental Governance – The Court ruled that the NGT must have the flexibility to address environmental damage and resultant climate change without waiting for a formal application to be filed. The NGT’s powers include taking suo motu cognizance of matters based on communications, media reports, or other sources, ensuring that environmental protection is not hampered by procedural constraints. The exercise of suo motu jurisdiction must adhere to principles of natural justice, providing affected parties an opportunity to be heard【Para 25.1-25.8】.

Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the NGT’s power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction in the discharge of its functions under the NGT Act. It recognized the NGT’s responsibility to address environmental concerns proactively and to act in the public interest, ensuring environmental protection and sustainable development. The appeals were decided in favor of allowing the NGT to operate with the broad powers envisaged by the statute【Para 21.4, 27.3, 25.8】.

Income Tax Act – Section 263 – Period of Limitation for Revisional Orders – The Supreme Court clarifies that under Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, the period of limitation for making an order is two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The term "made" is used in Section 263(2), not "received" or "dispatched." Therefore, the date of receipt by the assessee is irrelevant for calculating the limitation period【Para 4.3】.

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Literal Rule – The Court emphasized that statutory provisions should be read as they are, without adding or subtracting anything. The term "made" should be interpreted literally to mean the date the order is passed by the Commissioner, not the date it is received by the assessee【Para 4.3】.

High Court’s Error – Misinterpretation of Section 263(2) – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interpreting the provision of Section 263(2) by considering the date of receipt of the order by the assessee as the relevant date for determining the period of limitation. This interpretation adds a requirement not present in the statute【Para 4.3, 5】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was within the prescribed period of limitation. The judgment of the High Court, which held otherwise, was set aside【Para 5】.

Deficiency in Service – Onus of Proof – The Supreme Court held that the onus of proving deficiency in service lies with the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Without proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof shifts only after the complainant establishes a prima facie case of deficiency【Para 19-20】.

Responsibility of Certification Agencies – Scope and Limitations – The Court found that the appellant, a certification agency, was responsible only for certifying the quality, quantity, and packaging of the consignment at the time of loading. There was no contractual obligation for the appellant to ensure that the product specifications remained the same at the destination port. The presence of disclaimers in the certificates further exempted the appellant from liability for changes during transit【Para 23-25】.

Adverse Inference – Absence of Evidence – The Court noted that the complainant did not produce the best evidence available, such as test results of the samples sent to the destination port. Without such evidence, the appellant could not be held liable for any alleged deficiency. The Commission erred in drawing adverse inferences against the appellant without concrete proof of negligence at the time of loading【Para 22-24】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellant was not responsible for changes in the product specifications after loading, given the absence of any contractual clause or proof of negligence【Para 26】.

Illegal Possession of Sandalwood Oil – Presumption of Culpability – The Supreme Court held that the Kerala Forest Act's presumption of culpability under Section 27 requires the prosecution to prove that the accused knowingly possessed forest produce illicitly removed from a reserved forest. The High Court erred in holding that mere possession automatically implies culpable mental state without further proof of illicit origin【Paras 23, 28】.

Proof of Legitimate Procurement – Burden of Proof – The appellant provided documentation of the legitimate purchase of red oil used to produce sandalwood oil. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the oil was sourced illegally. The burden of proving the foundational facts giving rise to the presumption under Section 69 of the Act rests with the prosecution, which was not adequately discharged in this case【Paras 22, 25-27】.

Interference with Acquittal – Appellate Court’s Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court emphasized that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court’s acquittal unless there are compelling reasons. The High Court’s reversal of the acquittal was unjustified, as it misinterpreted the presumption under Section 69 and failed to establish the necessary mens rea for conviction under Section 27(1)(d) of the Act【Paras 29-30】.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the Sessions Court's acquittal of the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act was quashed【Para 30】.