RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA v. SURAJ BHAN & ORS

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 260

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

Case summary

RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA v. SURAJ BHAN & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 14 S. C. R. 260 r~ . . RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA I v. SURAJ BHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2274 of 2002) OCTOBER ;3, 2008 [R. V. "RAVEENDRAN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ. ] r- High Court Rules and Orders - Chapter 18-A, r. . VI - Pro- . motion to post of UDC - Claim for, by LDC's with retrospective effect in terms of Rule VI - Permanent vacancies in cadre of UDC arising in 1975 and claim raised 11:. 12 years thereafter - In pursuance of the order of High Court, claimants gra_nted promotion with retrospective effect but without monetary benefits - Challenge to, on the ground that claim had become time barred and s. 35(3) of 1918 Act, under which Rule VI framed, stood repealed - Allowed by Division Bench - On ',. _..... · appeal, held: Rule VJ was valid and applicable on the relevant date by virtue of Article 9 of Order 1937 - Though there was considerable delay, on facts, in the interest of equity, benefits of pr9motion with retrospective effect already r~ceived by .

claimant not taken away, but not entitled to any additional benefit- Punjab Courts Act, 1918- s. 35(3) - Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Law) Order 1937 - Service Law. ·Delay/Laches - Delay of more than a decade in apt proaching court in service matters - Effect of, when applicant l seeking equity- Held: Delay defeats equity- Delay of 11-12 years cannot be overlooked as it jeopardises the existing positions of other employees - Equity - Service law. Appellants-'RS' and 'VK' were appointed as LDC in 1972 and 1969 in the Ministerial Establishment in the Court I~_,,. ~ ; of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. They became graduates in the years 1975 and 1974 respectively. The permanent vacancies in the cadre of UDC occurred in ___:T 1975. In 1986 and 1987 appellants sought promotion to the posts of UDC w. e. f. 1975 in terms of Rule VI, Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules and Orders framed u/s. 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Their claim was rejected . .

However, the service appeals on the administrative side were allowed, but the appellants. were directed to be considered for promotion with prospective effect only. Ag- __J grieved, appellants filed writ petitions seeking promotion and other service benefits with retrospective effect. Meanwhile, appellants were promoted to the grade of UDC with prospective effect. The Single Judge of High Court held that the appellants should be deemed to have been promoted as UDC w. e. f. 01. 01. 1976 but without monetary benefit for the said period. It was also held that respondent No. 4-High Court of Delhi and respondent No. 5-District & Sessions Judge, Delhi would also give the benefit to the other similarly situated persons who had become .. ,___( graduates before 01. 01. 1976. Thereafter, two UDC's working on the post, filed appeals that the claim was barred by laches as the representations were made after a lapse of about 11-12 years; and thats.

35(3) ofthe Punjab Courts Act, 1918 under which, Rule VI was framed stood repealed, thus, Rule VI ceased to exist. Appellants also filed appeals claiming monetary benefits. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the said two UDCs. Hence the appeals. j Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. 1 Rule VI of the Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules and Orders was valid and applicable on the relevant date despite the fact that s. 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 stood repealed by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Law) Order 1937, by virtue of Article 9 ->--\ of Order of 1937. Rule VI has been in operation without any amendment therein until 19. 03. 1999 when fresh rules of promotion were framed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court substituting Rule VI as published in Punjab Gov- ernment, Gaz. , March 19, 1999 (PHGN, 1920, SAKA). [Para 12] [268, ~~B; 268,E-F] 1. 2 Respor:ident No.

4 w~s under a fiduciary duty and was required to consider the name of appellants for promotion to the post of UDC in accordance with the status tory rule as and when the vacancy arose. Unfortunately, there was lapse on the part of Respondent No. 4 due to which the case . of the appellants for promotion could not be considered. At the same time it cannot be scored out that the appellants slept over their rights, which led to a considerable delay i. e. delay of 11-12 years on the part of the appellants to give representation for promotion to the grade of UDC. [Paras 13 and 14] [268,F-H] 1. 3 Delay defeats equity is a well-known principle-of jurisprudence. Delay of 11 to 12 years cannot be over- 0 looked when an applicant before the court seeks equity and specially in the case of service matters as in the said case it jeopardises the existing positions of a very large number of members of that service. [Para 14] [269,A-B] 1.

4 Though the appeal was filed against the common judgment and order passed by the Single Judge but only the appellant 'RS' was added into the array of respondents, thus, not challenging the relief granted to the other appellant. Respondent· Nos. 1 and 2 did not raise the issue of de1ay and laches before the Single Judge and the said issue was raised for the first time in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The plea of delay and laches raised by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was declined by the Single Judge on the ground that once there was a statutory rule the said respondents were obliged to follow the same. [Para 17] [269,D-F] 1. 5 As on date, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no grievance against the appellants as they stood retired and no benefit will accrue upon them even if the order denying the promotion to the appellants to the post of UDC -- ) w. e. f 01. 01. 1976 is allowed. On the other hand the promotion to the appellants with retrospective effect, i. e. , w. e. f 01.

01. 1976 was granted subsequent to the judgment and order of the Single Judge which was in the year 1998 and they have been further promoted to the post of the Assistant. The appellants have reaped the benefits of promo- 8 tion with retrospective effect for nearly 10 years. [Paras ---l 15 and 18] [269,F-H; 269,B] 1. 6 Though it cannot be denied that there was considerable delay and the observations of the Division Bench in this regard cannot be faulted with but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it would not be fair to the appellants if the benefits they had secured are taken away. Therefore, it is directed that the benefits granted to the appellants and already received by them pursuant to the order of Single Judge shall not be taken ..... away as they have enjoyed such benefit for a very long '-1' period of time. However, they shall not be entitled to any additional benefit and no additional benefit will be granted. Such relief cannot be granted to anybody else.

[Para 19] [270,A-C] ' CIVIL APPEPPATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2274 of 2002 From ~he final Judgment and Order dated 18. 4. 2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 30 of 1999 7 _J WITH C. A. No. 6050 of 2008 C. Hari Shankar, C. M. Jayakumar, Jagdish Kainikkara and Tara Chandra Sharma for the Appellant. _. __ \ 8. 8. Singh, Subhash Kaushik, S. Pandey and D. S. Mahra \ for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,. J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 6878 of 2002 2. What is challenged in these appeals is the judgment. and order ofthe Division Bench of Delhi High ·court whereby the appeals filed against the order of the Ld. Single Judge in · . two Writ Petitions were allowed. . . 3. The . grievance of the appeHants as v1ias . raised· in the ·. (. Writ Petitions, in nutshell·, i~. as. follows:""· · S/Shri Rajendera Singh Lamba andV. K Garg, appellants· herein were appointed as LowerDiyision Clerks (forshort 'LDC') on 01.

10:1972. and24. 11. 1969 respectivel'y, in th. e Ministeri feats equity is a well-known principle of jurisprudence. Delay of ' 11 to 12 years cannot be overlooked when an applicant before the court seeks equity and specially in the case of service matters as in the said case it jeopardises the existing positions of a very large number of members of that service. 15. The appellants, however, submitted that pursuant to the order of the Ld. Single Judge they have been granted pro- ~-\ motion w. e. f 01. 01. 1976 and they have been further promoted to the· post of the Assistant. 16. Thus the question is, whether we should now take away the benefit which the appellant had actually obtained under the I order of the Ld. Single Judge. The settled position has been once / unsettled by the order of the Ld. Single Judge which has now some how settled again, the question is also that should we by our order now once again unsettle the so called settled position. ... 17.

Interestingly though the appeal was filed against the ----. , common judgment and order passed by the Ld. Single Judge but only Shri Rajendera Singh Lamba was added into the array of respondents, thus, not challenging the relief granted to Shri V. K. Garg. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not raise the issue of delay and laches before the Ld. Single Judge and the said issue was raised for the first time in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The plea of delay and laches raised by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was declined by the Ld. Single .. Judge on the ground that once there was a statutory rule the said respondents were obliged to follow the same. -+ 18. As of today respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no grievance against the appellants as they stood retired and no benefit will accrue upon them even if the order denying the promotion to the appellants to the post of UDC w. e. f 01. 01. 1976 is allowed. On the other hand the promotion to the appellants with . / ~; retrospective i. e.

w. e. f 01. 01. 1976 was granted subsequent to the judgment and order of the Ld. Single Judge which was in the year 1998. As of now, the appellants have reaped the benefits of promotion with retrospective effect for nearly 10 years. 1 < 19. Though it cannot be denied that there was considerable delay and the observations of the Division Bench in this regard cannot be faulted with but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we do not think that it would be fair to the appellants if the benefits they had secured are taken away. s Therefore, we direct that the benefits granted to the appellants and already received by them pursuant to the order of Ld. Single . Judge shall not be taken away as they have enjoyed such benefit for a very long period of time. However, they shall not be entitled to any additional benefit and no additional benefit will be granted. Obviously, such relief cannot be granted to anybody else. 20.

We make it clear that all the observations made herein are our views and opinion in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The questions of law raised before the High Court are kept open to be examined by this Court in an appropriate case. Needless to say, this order shall not be construed as a precedent in any other matter. 21. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. No order as to cost. N. J. Appeals disposed of.