Service Law - Pension - Pension Arrears – Switch from CPF to Pension Scheme – RBI Circulars of 2020 – No Arrears Payable – Respondent retired in 2014 and later exercised option under 2020 RBI Circulars to switch from CPF to Pension Scheme – RBI provided that pension would only be paid prospectively from 01.07.2020 – Supreme Court upheld validity of this cut-off date – Held: No legal or constitutional right to claim retrospective pension benefits once scheme terms were accepted in full [Paras 1–20, 27–42].

Policy Decision – Cut-off Date – Judicial Review Limited – Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts must defer to government’s financial and policy considerations in fixing cut-off dates – Cited binding precedents to stress that cut-off dates based on economic rationale and viability are not arbitrary – Held: Division Bench erred in granting arrears; policy valid [Paras 22–36].

Approbate and Reprobate – Entire Scheme Must Be Accepted or Rejected – Partial Challenge Impermissible – Respondent accepted all conditions of 2020 scheme, including pension start date and refund of CPF with interest – Later challenge to denial of arrears was inconsistent with settled contractual principles – Held: One cannot accept beneficial terms and contest burdensome ones under same scheme [Paras 17, 37–40].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Order Quashed – Single Judge Order Restored – Supreme Court set aside Kerala High Court Division Bench’s direction to grant pension from retirement date – Restored Single Judge’s order dismissing writ petition – Respondent to receive pension only from 01.07.2020, no arrears payable [Paras 41–42].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Triable Issues Exist – Rejection Improper – High Court erroneously rejected the plaint holding that it disclosed no cause of action – Supreme Court held that revocation of power of attorney and dispute over subsequent sale deeds raised serious triable issues – Held: Rejection of plaint unwarranted at preliminary stage where pleadings disclosed a cause of action regarding title and invalidity of transactions [Paras 6-14].

Unregistered Documents – Effect on Title Transfer – Agreement to Sell and GPA – No Transfer of Ownership – Sale deeds executed on basis of an unregistered and revoked power of attorney were challenged – Supreme Court reiterated settled law that unregistered agreements to sell or GPA do not create title or transfer rights in immovable property – Held: Respondent could not rely on such documents to validate conveyance [Paras 9-9.4].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Dispute Over Title – Not Barred by Revenue Law – Appellants sought declaratory reliefs including title and possession – Revenue court jurisdiction under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act held inapplicable – Held: Title disputes lie within exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts; mutation entries do not confer ownership [Paras 10-10.1].

Cause of Action – Distinct Reliefs – Partial Defect Does Not Warrant Full Rejection – Supreme Court reiterated that if even one cause of action is maintainable, the plaint must be tried – High Court erred in treating secondary reliefs as academic and rejecting entire suit – Held: Proper approach is to proceed with suit on triable issues rather than reject in entirety [Para 9.6, 9.7].

Final Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Plaint Restored – Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court order rejecting plaint quashed – Order of Additional District Judge, Jodhpur restored – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit on merits [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act – Trial Court and High Court upheld conviction based on testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-9 and corroborative material including fingerprint and recovery evidence – Supreme Court finds serious infirmities in prosecution’s case – Held: Conviction unsustainable as guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1, 6, 41, 42]

Witness Testimony – PW-1 (Informant and Eye-Witness) – Evidence found unreliable due to political rivalry, exaggeration, inconsistencies, and lack of clarity regarding visibility and identification – Admitted naming 36 persons initially, later retracted against 15 with no objection to their removal – Court held his testimony exaggerated and not confidence-inspiring [Paras 16–21, 29]

Witness Testimony – PW-2 (Chance Witness) – Came forward after 43 days citing fear, but prosecution failed to explain delay or examine companion Abdul Rahman – Court held testimony unbelievable and adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-examination of material witness [Paras 22–24, 30]

Child Witness – PW-9 (Injured Minor) – Aged 10 years, no preliminary voir dire by Trial Court, no test identification parade conducted – Admitted mother told her details of incident – Court held her evidence inadmissible due to non-compliance with legal standards for examining child witnesses [Paras 25–28, 31]

Circumstantial Evidence – Fingerprint Evidence – Fingerprints of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 alleged on Scorpio car – No Mahazar prepared, photographs not exhibited, procedural irregularities found – Court held fingerprint evidence unreliable [Para 32]

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Recovered from common or open locations at different times with questionable reliability – Held: Recovery evidence alone insufficient for conviction in absence of credible primary evidence [Para 33]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Article 136 – Scope of Interference – Reiterated that Supreme Court generally does not interfere with concurrent findings unless manifest illegality or misreading of evidence causing miscarriage of justice – In this case, striking features of evidence overlooked and misread by both lower courts warranted interference [Paras 36–40]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – To be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 41, 42]

Mining Leases – Validity of DMF Contribution Policy – Sections 9B & 15A of MMDR Act – Demand Upheld – The appellant, a sand mining lessee, challenged a Demand Notice requiring payment of 10% of the bid amount to the DMF Trust, asserting violation of Section 9B of the 1957 Act – The Supreme Court held that Section 9B is inapplicable to minor minerals due to Section 14 – Further, State power under Sections 15 and 15A to prescribe DMF contributions is valid – The 2017 State Policy was properly exercised under Rule 68 of the 1963 Rules and was binding – Demand found to be in conformity with Rule 10(2) of the 2017 DMF Rules – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–26].

Maternity Leave – Section 5 and 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - FR 101(a) and Constitutional Interpretation – Maternity Leave Granted – The appellant, a government teacher in Tamil Nadu, sought maternity leave for her first child born from her second marriage – The leave was denied on the ground that she already had two children from her first marriage – Supreme Court held that since the two children are in custody of her ex-husband and the present childbirth is from her subsisting marriage, the appellant is entitled to maternity benefits – Restriction under FR 101(a) must be interpreted liberally in light of constitutional rights and reproductive autonomy [Paras 4.1, 6, 9-11, 34-37].

Reproductive Rights – Article 21 of the Constitution – Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right – Recognized as a facet of the right to life – The Court emphasized that reproductive autonomy includes the right to bear children and access maternity benefits – Maternity leave is not merely a statutory right but part of the broader right to dignity and health under Article 21 [Paras 13-14, 28-31].

Maternity Benefit Act – Guidance in State Service Rules – Though not directly applicable to State Government employees, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act provide beneficial guidance – Supreme Court acknowledged that the Act allows maternity benefits even for more than two children, though with a reduced leave period, reinforcing the liberal interpretation required for FR 101(a) [Paras 18-20, 33].

International Norms – Relevance of CEDAW and International Covenants – The judgment draws heavily on international instruments such as CEDAW and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to underscore that maternity protection is a human right – Reinforces the obligation of the State to provide maternity benefits as part of respect for international law [Paras 22-27].

Final Decision – Division Bench Judgment Set Aside – Maternity Leave Granted – Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment of the Madras High Court and directed the State to release maternity benefits under FR 101(a) to the appellant within two months [Paras 36-38].

Contract Law – Electricity Act - Change in Law – Evacuation Facility Charges – Restitution Principle – Compensation Upheld – Coal India Limited issued a notification dated 19.12.2017 imposing Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) – Adani Power informed the appellants the next day, claiming this constituted a change in law – APTEL affirmed change in law status and awarded compensation from the date of the notification along with carrying cost at LPS rates – Supreme Court upheld the finding and reaffirmed that the compensation must be provided based on restitutionary principles to restore the economic position of the generator as if the change in law had not occurred [Paras 3–7, 18–21].

Supplementary Bill – Necessity for Prior Issuance – Not a Prerequisite for Compensation – The appellants contended that relief could not be claimed without first raising a supplementary bill – Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that a supplementary bill is to be raised after adjudication of the change in law event, and cannot preclude entitlement – Held: The absence of a prior supplementary bill does not affect the generator's right to compensation [Paras 24–26].

Interpretation of Article 10.5.1 of PPA – Change in Law via Notification vs Judicial Interpretation – Dispute centered on whether Article 10.5.1(i) or (ii) applied – Court clarified that since the change arose directly from a governmental notification (and not judicial interpretation), Article 10.5.1(i) applied – Held: Notification by Coal India Ltd. triggered compensation from its effective date, not from adjudicatory recognition [Paras 22–25].

Carrying Cost – Compound Interest Justified – Follows Restitutionary Principle – The Court upheld APTEL’s direction to award carrying cost at Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) rates, on a compound interest basis – Found consistent with prior judgments and the economic rationale behind restoring the generator’s position – Reaffirmed that contractual interpretation must reflect the intention of the parties and established jurisprudence [Paras 27–28].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – APTEL’s Award Sustained – Supreme Court held that no substantial question of law arose beyond that already settled in prior decisions – No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 28–29].

Service Law - Organised Group-A Service Status – Full Recognition of CAPFs as OGAS – DoPT OM Binding – High Court Error – The Court clarified that its earlier decision in Harananda (2019) was not limited to NFFU but affirmed full OGAS status for CAPFs – Held: Once declared OGAS, CAPFs must be treated as such for all cadre matters – High Court's failure to consider the DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019 rendered its ruling flawed [Paras 32, 36, 37].

Cadre Review and Service Rules – Mandate to Complete by Timeline – Direction Issued – The Court mandated completion of cadre review and amendment of recruitment rules within six months – DoPT to decide within three months after receiving MHA’s report – Held: Officers must be heard during review; cadre structure must reflect OGAS norms [Paras 45(1)-(4)].

Deputation of IPS Officers – Progressive Reduction Ordered – Stagnation Acknowledged – Court Recognized Need for Reform - The practice of deputation of IPS officers in senior ranks of CAPFs found to cause stagnation among cadre officers – Held: While policy matters lie within executive domain, excessive deputation undermines service mobility – Directed gradual reduction of deputation posts up to SAG within two years [Paras 15, 41, 45(5)].

Constitutional Equality – Unequal Treatment Violates Articles 14 and 16 – Mandate for Parity – Disparity in promotional norms and denial of OGAS benefits to CAPF officers despite equal standing held to violate fundamental rights – Held: Government cannot pick and choose implementation post-OGAS declaration – Parity must follow recognition [Paras 16.7, 19.2, 23, 24.1].

Policy Implementation – OM dated 12.07.2019 Has Legal Consequence – Government Bound – DoPT’s 2019 OM confirming CAPFs' OGAS status was held conclusive and binding – Held: Benefits such as NFFU, NFSG, cadre restructuring, and rule amendments are legal consequences of OGAS recognition [Paras 33-36, 43].

Decision – Civil Appeals Allowed – High Court Ruling Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s limited interpretation of OGAS status, and directed implementation of full OGAS benefits, cadre review, and structural changes – IPS deputation to be limited progressively [Paras 45-47].

Service Law - Disability Rights – Regularisation Under G.O. – Denial of Probation and Promotion – Held Discriminatory – Appellants, all persons with benchmark disabilities, were reappointed under G.O. dated 18/05/2013 to supernumerary posts after temporary service under Rule 9(a)(i) KS & SSR – Subsequently denied declaration of probation and promotional avenues by G.O. dated 03/02/2016 – Held: The later G.O. sought to withdraw vested service rights, causing discrimination in violation of Article 14 – Supreme Court set aside the impugned G.O. [Paras 1–3, 21–24].

Service Jurisprudence – Supernumerary Appointments – Nature and Legal Rights – Court held that reappointments under the 2013 G.O. amounted to regular appointments including probationary status – Denial of equal service treatment to disabled employees on that basis was impermissible – Held: Once appointed to posts with probation, denial of seniority and promotion by subsequent clarification is illegal [Paras 6, 20–23].

Article 14 – Equality in Public Employment – Disparate Treatment of Disabled Employees – Violation Found – Appellants resigned from other secure posts expecting regularization – Arbitrary denial of parity solely due to method of appointment struck down – Held: Appointments under G.O. 18/05/2013 gave rise to legitimate expectations, and Clause 3.5 of G.O. 03/02/2016 could not override them [Paras 11–13, 23].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – G.O. 03/02/2016 Quashed – Rights Restored – Supreme Court allowed all appeals – Set aside Kerala High Court Division Bench judgments – Restored orders of Single Judge and Kerala Administrative Tribunal that had granted full service benefits including probation and promotion to the appellants [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Quashing - POCSO Conviction – Role of High Court under Article 226 r/w Section 482 CrPC – High Court Overreach – High Court’s setting aside of the conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC held unsustainable – Supreme Court observed that the High Court misapplied its inherent powers, as serious offences like those under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed merely due to settlement or continued cohabitation between victim and accused – Held: Conviction restored for offences under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) & (3) IPC; acquittal for Sections 363 and 366 IPC confirmed [Paras 3, 23-23.1].

Victim Rehabilitation – State Responsibility under Article 21 and JJ Act – Constitutional Mandate Reaffirmed – Supreme Court held that the failure of the State to provide timely rehabilitation and care to a 14-year-old rape victim amounted to a violation of her fundamental right to life with dignity – Directed immediate constitution of expert committee for informed choice of victim, and mandated State to offer financial, educational, and housing support – Held: Non-compliance with Section 19(6) of POCSO Act results in denial of statutory and constitutional rights [Paras 24-26, 37-38, 44].

Sentencing – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Sentence Suspended – Despite confirmation of conviction, Supreme Court refrained from sentencing the accused, invoking powers under Article 142 to avoid further victim trauma and family disruption – Held: Though minimum sentencing under POCSO Act is mandatory, extraordinary circumstances warranted departure – Accused not to undergo further imprisonment; State to act as guardian of victim’s family and ensure rehabilitation [Paras 25-27, 31(a)].

Societal and Systemic Failure – Legal and Social Apathy Noted – Apex Court found a systemic breakdown in child protection measures – Highlighted inadequacies in local Child Protection Committees, lack of counselling and legal aid, and widespread exploitation of victims in the judicial process – Directed Centre to explore implementation of adolescent sexual health education and real-time data tracking mechanisms [Paras 12-13, 18-20, 30-31].

Decision – Conviction Maintained, Sentence Waived – In light of victim’s desire, Committee reports, and victim’s family interest, Court held that sentencing the accused would perpetuate injustice – Ordered permanent rehabilitation framework and periodic compliance reports from State – Union directed to respond with national implementation plan on adolescent protection measures [Paras 31(a)-(f), 32].