We fail to understand how the suit was maintainable as it is a settled legal proposition that in view of the provisions of Section 79 and Order 1 Rules 9& 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 300 of the Constitution of India, if a relief is sought against the State or the Union of India, the State or Union of India must be impleaded as a party. In case it is not so impleaded, the suit is not maintainable for want of necessary party. This view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in The District Collector, Srikakulam and Ors. v. Bagathi Krishna Rao and Anr. MANU/SC/0414/2010 AIR 2010 SC 2617, wherein after placing reliance on earlier judgments of this Court particularly, Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Anr. MANU/SC/0545/1976 : AIR 1977 SC 1701; and Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector and Ors.MANU/SC/0153/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 1805, this Court held that if the relief is sought against the State, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to implead the State and in absence thereof the suit itself would not be maintainable.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2273
OF 2011
Chaman Lal
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors.
Citation;AIR 2014 SC 3640
Dated;May 16, 2014.
1. This
appeal
impugned judgment
and
has
been
decree
preferred
dated
1.12.2009
against
in
the
Regular
Second Appeal No.2299 of 2009, passed by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, affirming the judgment and
decree dated 16.9.2008, passed by the Additional District
Judge, Amritsar in Civil Appeal No.122 of 14.6.2006 as well
as the judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006, passed by the
Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Amritsar in Civil Suit No.275 of
2004, wherein and whereunder the courts have dismissed the
suit of the appellant for grant of retiral benefits for not
being Government servant.
2.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
are as under:
A.
That the appellant had worked in the Army as Truck
driver from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968.
He was subsequently
employed as a truck driver in the Fish Farmers Development
1
Agency from 16.7.1980 to 20.5.1998.
After being declared
surplus, he was absorbed in the Animal Husbandry, Fisheries
and
Dairy
Development,
superannuated
B.
Punjab
on
1.6.1998
and
stood
on 31.3.2002.
The appellant instituted Civil Suit No.275 of 2004
claiming retrial benefits in view of letter dated 20.4.1998
issued
by
the
Govt.
of
Punjab
which
provided
for
regularisation of ad hoc employees by absorbing them against
the departmental posts.
The said suit was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006.
C.
Aggrieved,
No.122 of 2006.
the
appellant
preferred
Civil
Appeal
It was also dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 16.9.2008.
D.
Aggrieved,
Second
Appeal
the
which
appellant
has
been
preferred
dismissed
the
vide
Regular
impugned
judgment and decree.
Hence, this appeal.
3.
Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant
absorbed
has
in
submitted
the
Fish
that
as
Farmers
the
appellant
Development
had
Agency,
been
he
is
entitled to take the benefit of entire service rendered in
various places.
in
refusing
benefits.
Thus, the courts below committed an error
the relief
of
The appellant
pension
had
been
and
other
given
a
retrial
hostile
discrimination while a similarly situated person, namely,
Charanjit Lal got a decree from the Civil Court, Gurdaspur
on
16.9.1996
in
Suit
No.4
of
1992.
Thus,
the
appeal
deserves to be allowed.
2
4.
counsel
Per
contra,
appearing
for
Shri
Jagjit
the
State
Singh
has
Chhabra,
opposed
the
learned
appeal
contending that the Fish Farmers Development Agency is a
society
registered
under
the
Societies
Registration
1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1860).
Act,
If a civil
court had granted the relief by mistake or the plaintiff
therein
succeeded in getting a collusive decree, which is
contrary to law, its benefit cannot be extended to other
similarly situated persons for the reason that Article 14 of
the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an illegality.
Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5.
We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6.
Before we proceed further, it may be pertinent to
mention here that appellant after retirement had approached
the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No.1505 of 2004
(Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors.) seeking relief of
proficiency set up, against the State wherein the High Court
refused the relief by recording a finding that the Fish
Farmers
Development
Agency,
Amritsar
was
neither
a
Government agency nor a department but rather was a society
registered under the Act 1860.
7.
The
Trial
Court
considered
the
issue
of
entitlement of the appellant for the aforesaid relief and
held as under:
3
“Division Bench of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court in the State of Punjab & Anr. v. Shri
D.N. Rampal, Deputy Advocate General, 1985 (1) SLR
14, where Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held
that Rule 3.12 provides three qualifications for
pension. It says that the service of a Government
employee does not qualify for pension unless it
conforms to three conditions l(i) the service must
be under Government, (ii) the employment must be
substantive and permanent and (iii) the service
must be paid by Government.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that in the
present case all three conditions are fulfilled so
the plaintiff is entitled to regularization of his
services as per the provisions of Punjab Civil
Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.16, where the
Govt. pleader for the defendant/State argued that
the plaintiff cannot claim benefit of service
rendered by him prior to 1.6.1998 as services
rendered by him in Fish Farmer Development Agency
from 20.5.1980 to 31.5.1998 was rendered by him in
a society registered under the societies Act and
regarding this fact a categorical findings has
been recorded by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1501 of 2001
between the parties and the copy of order is Ex.D3
perusal of the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1501 titled
‘Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors. shows that
in that case also the question involved was that
whether services rendered
by the plaintiff in
Fish Farm Development Agency, Amritsar can be
considered for the purpose of proficiency step up
to the plaintiff and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court recorded a findings that the same
cannot be considered for proficiency step up. The
relevant portion of the findings recorded by the
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is reproduced
as under:-
‘It has been stated in the preliminary
objection
that
the
petitioner
was
appointed in the office of Fish Farm
Development Agency, Amritsar, as a Truck
Driver on a non-pensionable post.
The
Agency is a registered society under the
societies Registration Act, 1860.
It is
an autonomous body.
It is not a part of
the department of Fisheries Punjab.
In
fact, the petitioner was appointed as a
driver in the Department of Fisheries by
the Director and warden only on 22.5.1998.
In view of the above, no relief can
be
granted to the petitioner.’
4
So when the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court has recorded categorical findings that the
services rendered by the plaintiff prior to
22.5.1998 was rendered by him in a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act,
then the plaintiff cannot be held to be in service
under the Govt. prior
to 22.5.1998, so his
service rendered prior to that date cannot be
considered for the purpose of calculation of
pension. So all these issues are decided against
the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.”
8.
The
First
Appellate
Court
re-appreciated
the
entire evidence, on the issue. After making reference to the
judgment of the High Court rendered in the case of the
appellant, the court held:
“When there is adjudication between the
parties qua this fact and the Hon'ble High Court
vide order, referred to above, has given the
verdict that the plaintiff rendered the services
towards the Fish Farmers Development Agency,
Amritsar, as a truck driver which is non-
pensionable post and the agency is a registered
society under the Societies Registration Act,
1860, it is an autonomous body. Their Lordship
further observed that the service of the plaintiff
with the Fish Farmers Development Agency is not a
department of Fisheries, Punjab and now the.
petitioner/appellant is appointed as driver with
the Fisheries Department by the Director only on
28.5.1998.”
In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed.
9.
The High Court while dealing with the issue held
as under:
“Both the Courts below have given concurrent
finding that since Fish Farmers Development Agency
is an autonomous Board and is controlled by Co-
operative Society and as such the services
rendered by the plaintiff with the said Society
cannot be counted for the purposes of pensionary
benefits.
That concurrent finding of fact could
not be assailed. The petitioner has filed CWP
No.1501 of 2001 under Article 226/227 with a
prayer to direct the department to release the
5
additional increment in the form of proficiency
step up after 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of the
service but the same writ petition was dismissed
according to the plaintiff.”
10.
In fact, there has been adjudication on the same
issue between the same parties and the High Court negatived
appellant’s claim.
We are of the considered opinion that
the appellant does not deserve any relief whatsoever and the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11.
Garg
Coming
regarding
claimed
by
the
to
the
the
next
submission
discrimination
appellant
has
been
as
advanced
a
by
similar
granted
to
Shri
relief
similarly
situated person, namely, Charanjit Lal by a Civil Court and
the said judgment and decree attained finality and had not
been challenged.
Shri Garg has taken us through the said judgment
and
decree.
We
are shocked that in the said suit the
plaintiff therein, for the reasons best known to him, did
not implead the State of Punjab as a defendant.
The suit
had been filed only against the Fish Farmers Development
Agency, Gurdaspur and the Chief Executive Officer of the
said Agency.
No one else was added as a party.
Relief of
pension was sought against the State of Punjab, which was
not even impleaded as a party in the suit.
In fact, no
relief was sought against the defendants therein.
Thus, the
State was not bound by such a judgment and decree. (Vide:
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of
Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 786).
6
12.
We
fail
to
understand
how
the
suit
was
maintainable as it is a settled legal proposition that in
view of the provisions of Section 79 and Order 1 Rules 9 &
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 300 of
the Constitution of India, if a relief is sought against the
State or the Union of India, the State or Union of India
must
be
impleaded
impleaded,
the
necessary party.
as
suit
a
party.
is
not
In
case
maintainable
it
is
for
not so
want of
This view stands fortified by the judgment
of this Court in The District Collector, Srikakulam & Ors.
v. Bagathi Krishna Rao & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2617, wherein
after placing reliance on earlier judgments of this Court
particularly,
Ranjeet
Mal
v.
General
Manager,
Northern
Railway, New Delhi & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 1701; and Chief
Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector & Ors.,
AIR 2003 SC 1805, this Court held that if the relief is
sought against the State, it is necessary for the plaintiff
to implead the State and in absence thereof the suit itself
would not be maintainable.
13.
Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the
suit was wrongly decreed.
It is also intriguing to note
from the said judgment that the defendant appeared and filed
the
written
statement
plaintiff therein.
and
admitted
the
claim
of
the
Therefore, the judgment is not worth
putting any reliance on it.
The finding of fact had been
recorded therein that :
“Karam
Singh,
DW.1
admitted
during
cross-
examination that Punjab Govt. gives funds to
7
defendant no.1 agency, admitted that defendant
no.1 agency is being run by Punjab Government
admitted that employees in the agency are sent by
Punjab Government and admitted that employees of
Punjab Government are appointed for service in the
agency and he admitted that he himself is also
Government employee.”
(Emphasis added)
So
here
is
a
suit
which
was
decreed
on
the
admission of the defendant against whom no relief was prayed
for,
and
without
impleading the necessary party. We
are
equally amazed to find that State of Punjab implemented the
judgment. It leaves much to be desired.
14.
Thus, in view of the fact that the judgment and
decree in the case of Charanjit Lal seems to be collusive
and in a suit which itself was not maintainable, we are
unable
to
accept
the
submission
advanced
by
Shri
Garg,
learned counsel for the appellant.
15.
More so, it is also settled legal proposition that
Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case
a someone
wrong
benefit
has
been
conferred
upon
inadvertently or otherwise it may not be a ground to grant
similar relief to others.
The
Spl.
Land
This Court in Basawaraj & Anr. v.
Acquisition
Officer,
AIR
2014
SC
746
considered this issue and held as under:
“It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14
of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate
illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong
decisions made in other cases. The said provision
does not envisage negative equality but has only a
positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly
situated persons have been granted some relief/
benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order
does not confer any legal right on others to get
the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed
in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.
8
Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in
illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a
citizen or court in a negative manner. If an
illegality and irregularity has been committed in
favour of an individual or a group of individuals
or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial
forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the higher or superior court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or
for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong
order/decision in favour of any particular party
does not entitle any other party to claim benefits
on the basis of the wrong decision. Even
otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far
for otherwise it would make functioning of
administration
impossible.
(Vide:
Chandigarh
Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR
1995 SC 705, M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of
Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v.
State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Fuljit
Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1937).”
16.
In view of the above, we do not find any of the
arguments advanced by Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel for
the appellant worth acceptance.
The
appeal
accordingly dismissed.
is
devoid
of
any
merit
and
is
No order as to costs.
....................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
....................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
New Delhi,
May 16, 2014.
Print Page
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2273
OF 2011
Chaman Lal
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors.
Citation;AIR 2014 SC 3640
Dated;May 16, 2014.
1. This
appeal
impugned judgment
and
has
been
decree
preferred
dated
1.12.2009
against
in
the
Regular
Second Appeal No.2299 of 2009, passed by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, affirming the judgment and
decree dated 16.9.2008, passed by the Additional District
Judge, Amritsar in Civil Appeal No.122 of 14.6.2006 as well
as the judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006, passed by the
Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Amritsar in Civil Suit No.275 of
2004, wherein and whereunder the courts have dismissed the
suit of the appellant for grant of retiral benefits for not
being Government servant.
2.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
are as under:
A.
That the appellant had worked in the Army as Truck
driver from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968.
He was subsequently
employed as a truck driver in the Fish Farmers Development
1
Agency from 16.7.1980 to 20.5.1998.
After being declared
surplus, he was absorbed in the Animal Husbandry, Fisheries
and
Dairy
Development,
superannuated
B.
Punjab
on
1.6.1998
and
stood
on 31.3.2002.
The appellant instituted Civil Suit No.275 of 2004
claiming retrial benefits in view of letter dated 20.4.1998
issued
by
the
Govt.
of
Punjab
which
provided
for
regularisation of ad hoc employees by absorbing them against
the departmental posts.
The said suit was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006.
C.
Aggrieved,
No.122 of 2006.
the
appellant
preferred
Civil
Appeal
It was also dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 16.9.2008.
D.
Aggrieved,
Second
Appeal
the
which
appellant
has
been
preferred
dismissed
the
vide
Regular
impugned
judgment and decree.
Hence, this appeal.
3.
Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant
absorbed
has
in
submitted
the
Fish
that
as
Farmers
the
appellant
Development
had
Agency,
been
he
is
entitled to take the benefit of entire service rendered in
various places.
in
refusing
benefits.
Thus, the courts below committed an error
the relief
of
The appellant
pension
had
been
and
other
given
a
retrial
hostile
discrimination while a similarly situated person, namely,
Charanjit Lal got a decree from the Civil Court, Gurdaspur
on
16.9.1996
in
Suit
No.4
of
1992.
Thus,
the
appeal
deserves to be allowed.
2
4.
counsel
Per
contra,
appearing
for
Shri
Jagjit
the
State
Singh
has
Chhabra,
opposed
the
learned
appeal
contending that the Fish Farmers Development Agency is a
society
registered
under
the
Societies
Registration
1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1860).
Act,
If a civil
court had granted the relief by mistake or the plaintiff
therein
succeeded in getting a collusive decree, which is
contrary to law, its benefit cannot be extended to other
similarly situated persons for the reason that Article 14 of
the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an illegality.
Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5.
We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6.
Before we proceed further, it may be pertinent to
mention here that appellant after retirement had approached
the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No.1505 of 2004
(Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors.) seeking relief of
proficiency set up, against the State wherein the High Court
refused the relief by recording a finding that the Fish
Farmers
Development
Agency,
Amritsar
was
neither
a
Government agency nor a department but rather was a society
registered under the Act 1860.
7.
The
Trial
Court
considered
the
issue
of
entitlement of the appellant for the aforesaid relief and
held as under:
3
“Division Bench of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court in the State of Punjab & Anr. v. Shri
D.N. Rampal, Deputy Advocate General, 1985 (1) SLR
14, where Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held
that Rule 3.12 provides three qualifications for
pension. It says that the service of a Government
employee does not qualify for pension unless it
conforms to three conditions l(i) the service must
be under Government, (ii) the employment must be
substantive and permanent and (iii) the service
must be paid by Government.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that in the
present case all three conditions are fulfilled so
the plaintiff is entitled to regularization of his
services as per the provisions of Punjab Civil
Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.16, where the
Govt. pleader for the defendant/State argued that
the plaintiff cannot claim benefit of service
rendered by him prior to 1.6.1998 as services
rendered by him in Fish Farmer Development Agency
from 20.5.1980 to 31.5.1998 was rendered by him in
a society registered under the societies Act and
regarding this fact a categorical findings has
been recorded by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1501 of 2001
between the parties and the copy of order is Ex.D3
perusal of the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1501 titled
‘Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors. shows that
in that case also the question involved was that
whether services rendered
by the plaintiff in
Fish Farm Development Agency, Amritsar can be
considered for the purpose of proficiency step up
to the plaintiff and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court recorded a findings that the same
cannot be considered for proficiency step up. The
relevant portion of the findings recorded by the
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is reproduced
as under:-
‘It has been stated in the preliminary
objection
that
the
petitioner
was
appointed in the office of Fish Farm
Development Agency, Amritsar, as a Truck
Driver on a non-pensionable post.
The
Agency is a registered society under the
societies Registration Act, 1860.
It is
an autonomous body.
It is not a part of
the department of Fisheries Punjab.
In
fact, the petitioner was appointed as a
driver in the Department of Fisheries by
the Director and warden only on 22.5.1998.
In view of the above, no relief can
be
granted to the petitioner.’
4
So when the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court has recorded categorical findings that the
services rendered by the plaintiff prior to
22.5.1998 was rendered by him in a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act,
then the plaintiff cannot be held to be in service
under the Govt. prior
to 22.5.1998, so his
service rendered prior to that date cannot be
considered for the purpose of calculation of
pension. So all these issues are decided against
the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.”
8.
The
First
Appellate
Court
re-appreciated
the
entire evidence, on the issue. After making reference to the
judgment of the High Court rendered in the case of the
appellant, the court held:
“When there is adjudication between the
parties qua this fact and the Hon'ble High Court
vide order, referred to above, has given the
verdict that the plaintiff rendered the services
towards the Fish Farmers Development Agency,
Amritsar, as a truck driver which is non-
pensionable post and the agency is a registered
society under the Societies Registration Act,
1860, it is an autonomous body. Their Lordship
further observed that the service of the plaintiff
with the Fish Farmers Development Agency is not a
department of Fisheries, Punjab and now the.
petitioner/appellant is appointed as driver with
the Fisheries Department by the Director only on
28.5.1998.”
In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed.
9.
The High Court while dealing with the issue held
as under:
“Both the Courts below have given concurrent
finding that since Fish Farmers Development Agency
is an autonomous Board and is controlled by Co-
operative Society and as such the services
rendered by the plaintiff with the said Society
cannot be counted for the purposes of pensionary
benefits.
That concurrent finding of fact could
not be assailed. The petitioner has filed CWP
No.1501 of 2001 under Article 226/227 with a
prayer to direct the department to release the
5
additional increment in the form of proficiency
step up after 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of the
service but the same writ petition was dismissed
according to the plaintiff.”
10.
In fact, there has been adjudication on the same
issue between the same parties and the High Court negatived
appellant’s claim.
We are of the considered opinion that
the appellant does not deserve any relief whatsoever and the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11.
Garg
Coming
regarding
claimed
by
the
to
the
the
next
submission
discrimination
appellant
has
been
as
advanced
a
by
similar
granted
to
Shri
relief
similarly
situated person, namely, Charanjit Lal by a Civil Court and
the said judgment and decree attained finality and had not
been challenged.
Shri Garg has taken us through the said judgment
and
decree.
We
are shocked that in the said suit the
plaintiff therein, for the reasons best known to him, did
not implead the State of Punjab as a defendant.
The suit
had been filed only against the Fish Farmers Development
Agency, Gurdaspur and the Chief Executive Officer of the
said Agency.
No one else was added as a party.
Relief of
pension was sought against the State of Punjab, which was
not even impleaded as a party in the suit.
In fact, no
relief was sought against the defendants therein.
Thus, the
State was not bound by such a judgment and decree. (Vide:
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of
Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 786).
6
12.
We
fail
to
understand
how
the
suit
was
maintainable as it is a settled legal proposition that in
view of the provisions of Section 79 and Order 1 Rules 9 &
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 300 of
the Constitution of India, if a relief is sought against the
State or the Union of India, the State or Union of India
must
be
impleaded
impleaded,
the
necessary party.
as
suit
a
party.
is
not
In
case
maintainable
it
is
for
not so
want of
This view stands fortified by the judgment
of this Court in The District Collector, Srikakulam & Ors.
v. Bagathi Krishna Rao & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2617, wherein
after placing reliance on earlier judgments of this Court
particularly,
Ranjeet
Mal
v.
General
Manager,
Northern
Railway, New Delhi & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 1701; and Chief
Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector & Ors.,
AIR 2003 SC 1805, this Court held that if the relief is
sought against the State, it is necessary for the plaintiff
to implead the State and in absence thereof the suit itself
would not be maintainable.
13.
Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the
suit was wrongly decreed.
It is also intriguing to note
from the said judgment that the defendant appeared and filed
the
written
statement
plaintiff therein.
and
admitted
the
claim
of
the
Therefore, the judgment is not worth
putting any reliance on it.
The finding of fact had been
recorded therein that :
“Karam
Singh,
DW.1
admitted
during
cross-
examination that Punjab Govt. gives funds to
7
defendant no.1 agency, admitted that defendant
no.1 agency is being run by Punjab Government
admitted that employees in the agency are sent by
Punjab Government and admitted that employees of
Punjab Government are appointed for service in the
agency and he admitted that he himself is also
Government employee.”
(Emphasis added)
So
here
is
a
suit
which
was
decreed
on
the
admission of the defendant against whom no relief was prayed
for,
and
without
impleading the necessary party. We
are
equally amazed to find that State of Punjab implemented the
judgment. It leaves much to be desired.
14.
Thus, in view of the fact that the judgment and
decree in the case of Charanjit Lal seems to be collusive
and in a suit which itself was not maintainable, we are
unable
to
accept
the
submission
advanced
by
Shri
Garg,
learned counsel for the appellant.
15.
More so, it is also settled legal proposition that
Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case
a someone
wrong
benefit
has
been
conferred
upon
inadvertently or otherwise it may not be a ground to grant
similar relief to others.
The
Spl.
Land
This Court in Basawaraj & Anr. v.
Acquisition
Officer,
AIR
2014
SC
746
considered this issue and held as under:
“It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14
of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate
illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong
decisions made in other cases. The said provision
does not envisage negative equality but has only a
positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly
situated persons have been granted some relief/
benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order
does not confer any legal right on others to get
the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed
in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.
8
Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in
illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a
citizen or court in a negative manner. If an
illegality and irregularity has been committed in
favour of an individual or a group of individuals
or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial
forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the higher or superior court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or
for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong
order/decision in favour of any particular party
does not entitle any other party to claim benefits
on the basis of the wrong decision. Even
otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far
for otherwise it would make functioning of
administration
impossible.
(Vide:
Chandigarh
Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR
1995 SC 705, M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of
Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v.
State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Fuljit
Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1937).”
16.
In view of the above, we do not find any of the
arguments advanced by Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel for
the appellant worth acceptance.
The
appeal
accordingly dismissed.
is
devoid
of
any
merit
and
is
No order as to costs.
....................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
....................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
New Delhi,
May 16, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment