A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 142—Compassionate Appointment—Nature and Purpose: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right or a regular mode of recruitment but an exception carved out to mitigate the hardship caused due to the sudden demise of a government servant—It is intended to provide immediate succour to the dependent family members of the deceased employee to enable them to tide over the unforeseen financial distress caused by the loss of the breadwinner. (Para 5) B. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 142—Compassionate Appointment—Delay in Grant: If there is a considerable delay in making the claim for compassionate appointment, and if, during such time, the family of the deceased has managed to achieve self-sufficiency or financial stability, the very object of compassion...

Service Law—Principles of Natural Justice—Termination of Contractual Employment—Stigmatic Order—Requirement of Due Process—Termination of a contractual employee ("Rojgar Sewak" appointed under the MNREGA Scheme) solely on the ground of involvement in a pending criminal case under the Jharkhand Excise Act was held to be invalid for failure to comply with the Principles of Natural Justice—The Court observed that even in cases of contractual employment, if the termination is based on alleged misconduct or carries a stigma, the employer is obligated to follow due process before passing such an order. A stigmatic termination, which casts aspersions on the employee’s conduct or character, cannot be justified merely by citing the pendency of a criminal case—It necessitates issuance of ...

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Maintenance—Effect of Claimant’s Remarriage During Pendency of Revision—A claimant’s remarriage occurring during the pendency of a revision application is a subsequent event that cannot be taken into account while deciding the ongoing revision—The appropriate remedy lies in approaching the Family Court afresh, which is empowered to investigate and pass suitable orders in light of changed circumstances. (Para 4) B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Maintenance—Finality of Family Court’s Finding on Marriage—Where the Family Court has arrived at a definitive and evidence-based finding on the existence of marriage between the claimant and petitioner, the appellate court will generally not interfere with the maintenan...

Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908—Section 71A—The Court held that although no express limitation period is prescribed, the phrase “at any time” must be interpreted as within a reasonable period, not at the raiyat’s whim (Para 12)—An application lacking foundational facts such as date and manner of dispossession is unsustainable (Paras 25, 33, 37), and previous proceedings regarding the same land must be taken into account (Para 37). The Court emphasized that a compromise decree can be invalidated under Section 71A if it contravenes the Act or is legally challenged (Para 31)—A transferee or vendor may continue litigation despite transfer, as locus standi is not automatically lost due to non-disclosure of sale during pendency (Para 38). On procedural fairness, the Court found that the Revisional A...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 6 Rule 17—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Sub-Judge VI, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 81 of 2009, whereby the defendants’ application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement was allowed—The petitioner contended that the suit relates to partition of ancestral property originally held by Bibi Maniran, and a belated amendment was allowed which substantially altered the nature of the suit—The amendment sought to introduce a plea of prior partition in 1960-61, which according to the petitioner, would change the core issue of the suit—The counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 argued that the amendment merely clarified existing pleadings and did not intro...

Constitutional of India, 1950—Article 227—The petitioner challenged the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi, allowing an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in Partition Suit No. 92/2012—The amendment sought to withdraw an admission made in para 12 of the written statement, wherein the defendant (O.P. No.1) had admitted entitlement to half share in the suit property—The amendment was based on an unprobated Will—The Court held that once a clear admission is made in the written statement, it cannot be withdrawn through an amendment, especially at the final stage of trial—Citing Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal [(1998) 1 SCC 278], the Court emphasized that admissions in pleadings cannot be lightly allowed to be withdrawn and must be explained, not amended—The...

Second Appeal—CPC—Section 100—Substantial Question of Law—Partition Suit—Khasmahal Property—Admission by Defendant—Effect—The High Court dismissed a second appeal against concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts which partly decreed a partition suit—The appellant sought inclusion of land under Jamabandi No. 114, Plot Nos. 172 and 177, claiming it to be joint family property based on the defendant’s admission and alleged sale of his share—The trial and first appellate courts found, based on oral and documentary evidence, that the said land did not belong to the parties’ father and was not part of the joint family estate—Further, the disputed land was Khasmahal (government leasehold), not partitionable without prior approval from the Deputy Commission...

A. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 7—Consent of Wife in Adoption—Mandatory Requirement—A male Hindu cannot adopt a child during the lifetime of his wife without her prior consent, unless she has renounced the world, ceased to be a Hindu, or has been declared of unsound mind by a court—The burden of proving any of these exceptions lies on the person asserting them—In absence of proof of divorce or remarriage, the wife’s consent remains compulsory. (Paras 10, 11, 12) B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 16—Presumption under Registered Adoption Deed—Rebuttable Nature—Although a registered adoption deed carries a statutory presumption of validity under Section 16, this presumption is rebuttable—If essential conditions such as mand...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 22—Cross-Objection—The Supreme Court held that compensation for land acquisition must be determined based on the nature of the land and evidence adduced, rather than blindly following previous awards or judgments—Compensation should rely on current market values reflected by comparable sale deeds, especially for acquisitions over 5 to 10 years old—The Court emphasized that awards older than 10-12 years cannot be used as a safe basis without evidence of regular price appreciation—Further, in Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra ((2013) 14 SCC 50), it was held that a claimant bears the burden of proving that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate, and the Reference Court cannot enhance compensation without relevant findings—In the...

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 376 IPC by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa—The prosecution's case was based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, who alleged that the accused committed rape on 27.07.1993 and that following a village panchayat decision, she lived with him as his wife for ten days before being ousted—The Court noted inconsistencies and contradictions in the victim’s testimony, particularly regarding the panchayat's decision, the alleged assault, and her conduct during and after the incident—Medical evidence showed swelling and tenderness, but the timing raised doubts, as the examination occurred 13 days post-incident and the doctor opined only an attempt of rape—The Court held that the victim’s version lacked coherence and credibility—Re...