Facts:

The respondent, M. Maruthi, was terminated from his employment as a contract conductor at the Cantonment Depot, Hyderabad, following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of misconduct.

Despite dismissal being upheld in subsequent appeals and industrial disputes, Maruthi filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge relied on a previous judgment from 2012, directing the appellant, Depot Manager of APSRTC, to reengage Maruthi with continuity of service solely for the purpose of future regularization, without monetary benefits. The Division Bench affirmed this decision in a writ appeal.

Issues:

Whether the Division Bench erred in confirming the Single Judge's order without considering the distinguishing facts of the present case.

Held:

The Division Bench failed to adequately consider the specific facts of the present case in comparison to the previous judgment upon which the decision was based. The circumstances of the earlier case were different from the current situation.

Therefore, the Division Bench erred in confirming the Single Judge's order without proper review. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, thereby upholding the appellant's termination of Maruthi's employment.

Facts:

The respondent, a contract driver employed by the appellant corporation, faced a departmental inquiry for unauthorized absence, leading to his termination.

Upon a departmental review, the respondent was re-engaged on contract.

Subsequently, the respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking continuity of service and consequential benefits.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service can be granted without challenging the termination or fresh appointment.

Whether granting continuity to an employee found guilty of misconduct would be appropriate.

Held:

Continuity of service couldn't be granted without challenging the termination or fresh appointment. Granting continuity to an employee found guilty of misconduct would place him on par with other contract employees without blemish records (para. 9-10).

The judgments failed to consider the individual facts of each case and wrongly applied a common order to the entire batch of cases (para. 12).

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The seniority of the respondent workman should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment in the corporation's service. No costs were awarded in the matter (para. 13-16).

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract conductor with the appellant corporation (APSRTC).

A departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent, leading to his termination.

The respondent appealed against the termination and was later granted a fresh appointment.

The respondent approached the High Court seeking continuity of service.

Issues:

Whether the grant of continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct is valid.

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service was justified.

Held:

Continuity of service cannot be granted to an employee found guilty of misconduct unless the termination order is set aside.

Granting continuity to such an employee would be unjust, as it would place them on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record.

The High Court's decision to grant continuity of service was manifestly misconceived.

The seniority of the respondent should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent's seniority was to be counted from the date of his fresh appointment. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract conductor by the appellant corporation.

Following a departmental inquiry, the respondent's services were terminated due to misconduct.

The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Single Judge of the High Court directed the corporation to reengage the respondent in service and grant continuity of service.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service to the respondent was justified.

Whether the High Court properly considered the individual facts of the case.

Held:

The Court ruled that continuity of service cannot be granted unless the termination order is set aside. It emphasized the importance of ensuring there is no gap in service.

Granting continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct would place them on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record.

The Court found that the High Court failed to properly consider the individual facts of the case and erred in issuing a common order for all cases.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of both the Division Bench and the Single Judge.

Facts:

The respondent, A.U.M. Rao, was employed as a driver on contract by APSRTC in February 2007.

Following a disciplinary inquiry, his services were terminated, but he was later re-engaged on contract after a departmental review.

A.U.M. Rao approached the High Court seeking continuity of service and consequential benefits under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service could be granted to the respondent without challenging the termination or fresh appointment?

Whether the judgment of the High Court was erroneous in granting continuity of service based on an earlier judgment?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the grant of continuity of service without challenging the termination or fresh appointment was incorrect. The Court emphasized that continuity of service could only be granted if the termination order was set aside. The judgment of the High Court was found to be erroneous as individual case facts were overlooked while deciding the batch of cases together.

The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the respondent's seniority should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment. The appeals were disposed of without costs.

Facts:

Dispute arose between STC and GSHL regarding non-payment of outstanding dues under a tripartite agreement.

Parties decided to settle disputes through conciliation proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Two settlement agreements were entered into between the parties, but GSHL failed to fully comply with them.

STC filed an Execution Petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to execute the settlement agreements, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

STC appealed against the Delhi High Court's decision to the Supreme Court.

Payments were made by the respondents during the pendency of the appeal, eventually discharging the entire liability till 10.11.2012.

The only remaining issue was the interest payable from 10.11.2012 onwards.

Issues:

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide the interest payable and its rate.

Determination of the amount payable towards interest and the period within which it should be paid.

Held:

The Court held that it has jurisdiction to decide the interest payable and its rate, and decided to settle the matter by determining the interest payable and its rate.

The respondents are liable to pay interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1610 crores at a rate of 8% per annum from 10.11.2012.

The respondents were directed to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 600 crores towards interest within 12 weeks from the date of the order.

Upon payment of the specified amount, all claims arising from the settlement agreements would be finally settled, and all pending proceedings between the parties would be closed.

Failure to pay the specified amount by the deadline would amount to contempt of court, and STC would have the right to take appropriate legal action.

Facts:

Students admitted to the first year MBBS course at Respondent No. 5 College sought transfer to another institution due to concerns regarding the college's infrastructure and compliance with regulatory norms.

Issues:

Whether the students could be transferred to another institution to complete their MBBS course due to deficiencies in Respondent No. 5 College's infrastructure and compliance with regulatory norms.

Held:

The court directed Respondent No. 5 College to transfer its land, building, and assets to the State Government to address concerns regarding its infrastructure. The State Government would then apply for affiliation with Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, Uttarakhand Medical University, Dehradun, and the university would decide on affiliation within four weeks.

Once the necessary infrastructure is set up, the State Government would apply to the Medical Council of India for permission under Section 10A of the Medical Council of India Act. If affiliation and permission are granted, students completing the first year course can sit for the first year MBBS examination conducted by the affiliating university.

The Director General of Police, Dehradun, was directed to seal the premises of Respondent No. 5 College immediately. Any future litigation regarding the college should be addressed only before the Supreme Court.

Facts: The appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash Charge Sheet No. 1 dated 07.05.2016 in Case Crime No. 441 of 2015 under Sections 420, 406, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellants' application without referring to the factual aspects of the case, merely citing legal principles.

Issues: Whether the High Court's dismissal of the appellants' application under Section 482 of the CrPC was justified.

Held and Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, finding that it failed to consider the factual matrix of the case and only relied on legal principles. The Court remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits, instructing the High Court to consider both legal principles and factual findings. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasoning in the order to enable higher courts to review the decision. The High Court was directed to reconsider the appellants' application after issuing notices to the respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh and another).

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, with instructions to provide reasoned findings.

Facts:

The case revolved around the nominations made by the Central Government to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Puducherry under Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.

Issues:

Whether the Central Government is obligated to consult the Council of Ministers/Chief Minister of Puducherry and obtain their concurrence before making nominations.

Interpretation of the term "Central Government" in Section 3(3) of the Act.

Determination of whether nomination to the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry constitutes business of the Government of Puducherry.

Whether the nominations made by the Central Government violate principles of federalism.

The sustainability of recommendations made by the High Court in its judgment.

Held:

The court held that the Central Government is not required to consult the Council of Ministers/Chief Minister of Puducherry or obtain their concurrence before making nominations.

The term "Central Government" in Section 3(3) refers to the President and not the administrator, as clarified under the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Nominations to the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry do not constitute business of the Government of Puducherry, but rather fall under the purview of the Central Government.

The nominations made by the Central Government do not violate principles of federalism, as the Constitution itself empowers Parliament to create a legislative body for Union Territories.

The recommendations made by the High Court were deemed unnecessary, as there were already established rules and procedures for the Central Government to follow.