Retirement Age – Enhancement of Retirement Age – Appellant challenged the denial of extension of retirement age from 60 to 65 years as per notification dated 6 February 2015 – Supreme Court held that the notification is prospective and does not apply to those who had already attained the age of superannuation – The end of session benefit does not alter the date of superannuation [Paras 1-24].

Fundamental Rules and Special Orders – Application and Interpretation – Supreme Court found that the special order dated 6 February 2015 enhancing the retirement age to 65 years cannot be regarded as ultra vires but is prospective in nature – The appellant's extension until the end of the session under the GO dated 19 November 2012 does not entitle him to benefit from the increased retirement age [Paras 14-19].

Comparison with Regulation 21 of the Intermediate Education Act – Supreme Court distinguished the provisions and noted that Regulation 21 contains a deeming provision extending retirement to the end of the academic year, which is not present in the GO dated 19 November 2012 for medical teachers [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Appellant not entitled to enhanced age of retirement of 65 years – Terminal benefits to be computed and released within two months [Paras 23-24].

Payment of Gratuity – Definition of Employee – Appellant contended that service as a daily wager should be counted for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – High Court ruled provisions of the Act do not apply to individuals governed by other statutes, specifically the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Supreme Court noted conflicting decisions and referred the matter to a larger bench [Paras 1-7].

Service Rules and Gratuity – Conflicting Decisions – Supreme Court identified conflict between the decision in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018) 5 SCC 430 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Jammu vs. Teja Singh (unreported) – Highlighted that the provisions of the 1976 Rules were not considered in Netram Sahu [Paras 4-6].

Referral to Larger Bench – Judicial Propriety – Due to conflicting decisions and to maintain judicial propriety, Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench for detailed examination and resolution [Para 7].

Decision: Issue referred to a larger bench for consideration – Registry directed to place the file before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench [Para 7].

Juvenile Justice Act – Plea of Juvenility – Gang-rape-murder case – Petitioner claimed juvenility based on School Leaving Certificate – Application under Section 7A of the JJ Act – Supreme Court reiterated that once the plea of juvenility has been rejected by courts up to the Supreme Court, the plea cannot be reagitated by filing a fresh application – Petitioner’s plea had been previously rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the High Court, and the Supreme Court – SLP dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Legal Precedents – Reference to previous orders – Claim of juvenility must be conclusively determined as per procedure – Petitioner’s age confirmed as above 18 years at the time of the offence in previous court orders – Fresh application barred after conclusive determination by the Supreme Court [Paras 6-11].

Decision: SLP dismissed – Earlier decisions by Metropolitan Magistrate, High Court, and Supreme Court upheld – Petitioner barred from reagitating juvenility claim under Section 7A of the JJ Act [Para 13].

Guardianship and Custody – Contact Rights – Courts should ensure that the parent denied custody of the child should have the right to communicate with the child for 5 to 10 minutes daily via video call or other means – This helps maintain and improve the bond between the child and the non-custodial parent, facilitating easier transitions during visits and vacations [Para 22].

Visitation Rights and Contact Rights – The child has a fundamental human right to love, affection, company, and protection from both parents, regardless of parental conflicts – Courts must provide clear guidelines on visitation rights to ensure the child does not lose social, physical, and psychological contact with either parent – Only in extreme circumstances should a parent be denied contact with the child, and reasons must be documented [Paras 20 and 22].

Welfare of the Child – Primary and paramount consideration in custody matters – Court must weigh all circumstances carefully to determine the best interest of the child, considering the need for contact with both parents – Factors such as age of the child, nationality, and previous court orders must be considered – In this case, shared custody arrangements and specific visitation rights were detailed to ensure both parents remain involved in the child's life [Paras 1-37].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Directions provided for custody arrangements, including provisions for daily video calls and biannual visits to India – Custody of the child determined with provisions for both parents’ involvement [Para 37].

Benami Transactions – Nature and Burden of Proof – Appellant contested the claim on the grounds that the money involved was part of a benami transaction, thus barred under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Court held that the plaintiff did not seek recovery based on a benami transaction nor claimed any property as benami – The burden of proving a transaction as benami lies on the person asserting it, which the appellant failed to do [Paras 17-18].

Loan Repayment – Evidentiary Support – Plaintiff alleged that the appellant had borrowed Rs. 80,000/- which was not repaid – Appellant contended the amount was returned the next day, a claim unsupported by evidence – High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, noting inconsistencies in the appellant's defense and affirming the existence of the loan with substantial evidence, including unreturned post-dated cheques and acknowledgment of receipt of money [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the High Court upheld – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 16.02.1990, failing which the interest rate will be 12% p.a. [Para 22].

Consumer Protection Act – Agricultural Debt Waiver – The appellants, categorized as 'small farmers', sought a full waiver of their loan under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 – District Forum and State Commission ruled in favor of the appellants – NCDRC reversed the decision citing the non-inclusion of the appellants' district in Annexure-I of the Scheme – Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to a full waiver as per clause 5 of the Scheme which does not refer to Annexure-I – Appeals allowed, NCDRC order set aside [Paras 1-21].

Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 – Clause 5 and Clause 6 – Distinction between debt waiver for small and marginal farmers under clause 5 and one-time settlement for other farmers under clause 6 – Explanation of the definitions and applicability of Annexure-I – Appellants' entitlement confirmed under clause 5 for a full waiver as small farmers, without reference to Annexure-I [Paras 10-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC judgment set aside – District Forum's order directing loan waiver restored – Appellants awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 [Para 21].

Insurance Claim – Repudiation – Interpretation of Insurance Policy – Appellant's showroom collapsed due to excavation work on an adjacent plot – Insurance claim repudiated by insurer based on policy exclusion clause VIII(e) – Supreme Court held that exclusion applies only to excavations carried out by the insured on their property, not third-party excavations – NCDRC's order set aside, and claim allowed [Paras 1-13].

Consumer Protection Act – Section 23 – Jurisdiction – NCDRC reversed concurrent findings of District and State Commissions – Supreme Court emphasized beneficial interpretation for insured in case of ambiguity – Policy exclusions to be construed reasonably, not to include third-party actions unless explicitly stated [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC judgment set aside – District Forum’s order allowing insurance claim restored – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Employees' Provident Fund – Applicability – Contractual employees of the appellant company sought provident fund benefits – High Court directed that benefits be extended under the EPF Act – Supreme Court modified the direction, holding that benefits should be provided under the Pawan Hans Employees Provident Fund Trust Regulations for uniformity in service conditions – Appeals allowed in part, direction to deposit contributions from the date of eligibility till the date of remittance modified [Paras 1-8].

Definition of 'Employee' – Inclusive definition under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act – Includes any person engaged directly or indirectly in connection with the work of an establishment and paid wages – PF Trust Regulations also cover contractual employees directly paid by the company [Paras 6.3-6.5].

Government Control – Establishment owned or controlled by the Central Government – Appellant company holds 51% shares by Central Government and is managed by Board of Directors – Exemption under Section 16 not applicable as PF Trust Regulations did not cover all employees [Para 6.2].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment modified – Contractual employees to receive provident fund benefits under the PF Trust Regulations from January 2017 – Contributions and interest to be computed and deposited as directed – Costs of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded to respondent union [Para 8].

Environmental Law – Judicial Review – Environmental Clearance – Supreme Court directed the EAC to revisit its recommendations for the EC granted for the Mopa airport project – EAC required to assess the environmental impacts considering the specific concerns highlighted by the Supreme Court – Upon revisiting, additional environmental safeguards were imposed – Appeals allowed, and the EC conditions were mandated to be strictly followed [Paras 1-46].

Environmental Protection Act – Compliance – Project proponent directed to ensure the implementation of stipulated conditions for environmental protection – Compensatory afforestation, preservation of natural water channels, and mitigation measures for flora and fauna were emphasized – Public consultation concerns addressed through an updated Environmental Management Plan (EMP) [Paras 5-15, 41-45].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application allowed – EAC's additional conditions incorporated into the EC – EC granted with comprehensive safeguards to protect the environment – Conditions imposed by EC, NGT, and EAC to be cumulatively observed [Para 46].