One Rank One Pension – Implementation and Disparities – Petitioners challenged the deviation from the original definition of OROP, arguing the shift from automatic revision to periodic revision every five years created disparities among pensioners of the same rank – Supreme Court held the policy decision to revise pensions every five years was within the scope of policy choices available to the Union Government and did not violate constitutional principles of equality – The policy of revising pensions based on the average of minimum and maximum pension of 2013 retirees was upheld, as the decision lay within the domain of policy choices and did not warrant judicial interference [Paras 24-28].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations – Petitioners' reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectations for automatic pension revisions rejected – Court held that ministerial statements and committee recommendations did not constitute binding policy decisions – The executive's final policy decision embodied in the 7 November 2015 communication governed the implementation of OROP [Paras 26-27].

Plea of Discrimination – Alleged inequalities due to the MACP Scheme and periodic revision – Court found no violation of Article 14, explaining disparities in pension due to different service lengths, MACP benefits, and the averaging method for pension calculation were reasonable – The differentiation based on dates of retirement did not create unconstitutional classification [Paras 29-32].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the Union Government's policy on OROP as defined by the 7 November 2015 communication – The court directed that the government’s periodic revision of pension every five years did not breach constitutional mandates of equality [Paras 12-28].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Accused – Magistrate's Power – Whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report – Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has the power to summon a person not named in the police report if there are materials on record revealing prima facie involvement in the offence – The jurisdiction to issue summons can be exercised even if the person's name does not feature in the FIR or police report [Paras 2-21].

Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Evidentiary Value – Statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC can be considered for summoning an accused not named in the police report – The Magistrate can act on such statements if satisfied with the involvement of the person in the offence [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, finding no error in the Magistrate's order summoning the appellant based on the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC – Interim order dissolved [Paras 22-24].

Service Law – Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) – High Court erred in striking down the latter part of Rule 3A – Rule 3A must be read in conjunction with Rule 3, Note 2, and Ruling 3 – These provisions provide for the treatment of DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement – Even in the absence of proceedings, amounts can be recovered from DCRG [Paras 27-37].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Withholding of DCRG – The principle that DCRG can be withheld during the pendency of disciplinary or judicial proceedings affirmed – Appeal is a continuation of proceedings, allowing for withholding of DCRG during such period – High Court’s order directing the release of DCRG to employees convicted in criminal cases (with appeals pending) set aside [Paras 28-41].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – DCRG not to be released pending criminal appeals – Matter remanded for compliance with the provisions of Rule 3A of the KSR [Paras 42-43].

Service Law – Discharge of Judicial Officer – High Court erred in treating appellant's negligence as misconduct warranting discharge – No continuous illegal orders were passed, only one bail order involved – Enquiry officer improperly acted as a court of appeal, focusing on alleged errors in the bail order – Discharge order deemed punitive as it resulted from disciplinary enquiry and placed stigma on appellant's competence – Appellant entitled to protection under Article 311(2) – High Court's order of discharge quashed, appellant to be reinstated with 50% back wages [Paras 2-27].

Constitutional Law – Article 311(2) – Protection in Case of Punitive Action – Discharge not based on 'unsatisfactory performance' but on enquiry finding misconduct – Non-communication of ACRs to appellant arbitrary – Discharge constituted punitive action due to stigmatization – Appellant entitled to protection under Article 311(2) [Paras 28-37].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Discharge order quashed – Appellant to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority but entitled to only 50% back wages [Para 37].

Service Law – Seniority – Determination of Seniority among direct recruits and promotees under the Central Excise and Land Customs Group-C Recruitment Rules, 1979 – High Court upheld seniority list based on indents placed with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for direct recruitment – Supreme Court held that actual vacancies must be considered, not merely indented vacancies – Department’s failure to account for all direct recruit vacancies (including compassionate appointments and sports quota) led to erroneous seniority determination – Matter remanded for fresh consideration based on actual vacancies [Paras 1-62].

Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment – High Court erred in treating promotees as ad-hoc due to non-reporting of direct recruit vacancies – Promotions made within the quota should be treated as regular – Promotions and regularizations within the promotee quota during the ban on direct recruitment should be considered for seniority purposes – Supreme Court directed recalibration of seniority list in light of these findings [Paras 56-62].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – CAT’s order restored – Matter remanded to determine seniority based on actual vacancies, including those filled under compassionate appointments and sports quota [Paras 60-62].

Trademark Infringement – Ad-interim Injunction – High Court Division Bench erred in allowing an appeal against a Single Judge’s order granting time for filing affidavits and postponing the hearing for ad-interim injunction – Order by Single Judge did not have finality traits, thus not appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Division Bench’s order granting injunction reversed [Paras 22-25, 35-38].

Civil Procedure – Appeal against Interlocutory Orders – Not every order passed by a trial judge constitutes a ‘judgment’ under Clause 15 – Only orders affecting vital and valuable rights, having traits of finality, are appealable – Appeal against Single Judge’s order was not tenable, as it merely postponed the injunction hearing and allowed filing of affidavits [Paras 15-21, 23-26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Division Bench’s judgment set aside – Single Judge’s order reinstated, directing the matter for prompt resolution without influence from prior observations [Paras 38-40].

Judicial Service Examination – Age Limits – Upper age limit for DJS and minimum age requirement for DHJS challenged – Delhi High Court amended the age criteria, leading to candidates becoming ineligible due to examination delays – Supreme Court allowed candidates who would have qualified in 2020 and 2021 to appear for 2022 exams as a one-time measure – For DJS, candidates who would have been eligible if exams were held in 2020 and 2021 can apply by 3 April 2022 and appear on 24 April 2022 – For DHJS, candidates eligible in 2020 and 2021 can apply by 26 March 2022 and appear on 3 April 2022 [Paras 18-20, 28-30].

Constitutional Law – Article 233 – Age Requirement – Article 233(2) prescribes a seven-year practice requirement for District Judge appointment but does not preclude High Courts from setting minimum age limits – Age limits ensure maturity and experience – Challenge to minimum age of 35 for DHJS rejected, as it aligns with Shetty Commission recommendations and policy for attracting experienced candidates [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Age criteria relaxed for 2022 exams – Writ petitions disposed of [Paras 30-32].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – High Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of limitation and maintainability – Entire plaint must be considered, not isolated averments – Plaint cannot be partially rejected; reliefs are interconnected – Cause of action for permanent injunction can arise when possession is sought to be disturbed – High Court exceeded jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint without properly considering the entire plaint averments [Paras 7.1-8].

Transfer of Property – Section 53A – Maintainability – Suit invoking Section 53A for declaration and permanent injunction cannot be summarily rejected – Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Section 53A to be determined at trial – High Court erred in concluding that such a suit is not maintainable [Paras 7.4-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order rejecting the plaint set aside – Trial to proceed on merits without being influenced by observations regarding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant, Chairman and Managing Director of MSPL Limited, implicated in conspiracy to evade road tax – Allegations of short payment of road tax found to be baseless – Supreme Court held the proceedings against the appellant to be misconceived and harassive – The chargesheet lacked specific allegations or material evidence against the appellant – Criminal proceedings quashed as they were in abuse of process of law [Paras 25-45].

Director's Liability – No Vicarious Liability – Court reiterated that criminal proceedings against company officials require specific allegations of individual involvement – Summoning order must reflect application of mind and satisfaction of prima facie case against officials – Absence of specific role attributed to the appellant warranted quashing of proceedings [Paras 25-28, 34-36].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Proceedings against appellant quashed – Further proceedings in lower court stayed [Para 45].