LDCs sought promotion to UDC with retrospective effect from 1975 in terms of Rule VI. The Supreme Court held the rule valid despite repeal of its parent provision, found the claim delayed by over a decade, but declined to withdraw benefits already received while denying any additional benefit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
r~ I
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 260
A
. .RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA
v.
SURAJ BHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2274 of 2002)
OCTOBER ;3, 2008
B
[R.V."RAVEENDRAN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
High Court Rules and Orders - Chapter 18-A, r. . VI - Pro- cmotion 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 ben- Defits-Challengeto,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the ground that claim had become time barred and s. 35(3) of 1918 Act, under which Rule VI framed, stood repealed - Allowed by Division Bench - On appeal, held: Rule VJ was valid and applicable on the relevant date by virtue of Article 9 of Order 1937 - Though there was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 E 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 approaching court in service matters - Effect of, when applicant 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.
F
G
Appellants-'RS' and 'VK' were appointed as LDC in 1972 and 1969 in the Ministerial Establishment in the Court 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 260
r-
',._.....·
t l
I~_,,.~ ;
H
261
RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA v. SURAJ BHAN & ORS:
j
___ :T
_ _J
..,_(
E
F
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-
G
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A 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 C 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 over0 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]
E 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 F 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 G 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 denyH ing the promotion to the appellants to the post of UDC
263
RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA v. SURAJ BHAN & ORS.
'
-- )
---l
..... '-1'
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 promotion with retrospective effect for nearly 10 years. [Paras 15 and 18] [269,F-H; 269,B]
A
8
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 pe-c culiar 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 D 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. Such relief cannot be granted to anybody else. [Para 19] [270,A-C] E
E
CIVIL APPEPPATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2274 of 2002
_7 J
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
WITH
F
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.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,. J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 6878 of 2002
·. (.
· ,,,..
~·
RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA v. SURAJ 265 BHAN & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
B
(ii) & (iii) By normal promotion in the office, i.e., the appointment of the next. senior man whether graduate or non-graduate subject to his fitness:
'-.'
Provided further that the rotation may be modified in very c exceptional cases when the direct appointment of a graduate would mean the ousting of a man, who had been officiating quasi-permanently in the post concerned for an · appreciable period. What is an appreciable period will depend on the circumstances of each case. After such a: D modification, the rotation should be restored as soon as possible.
(2) In making promotions preference ·may invariably be shown to officials who are known to be strictly honest. No promotion should be given and no recommendation for · E promotion made in the case of an official who does not possess and maintain a reputation for strict integrity. Efficiency without honesty is not to be regarded as constituting a claim to promotion."
.J
The appellants were seeking their promotion w.e.f. 1975, as according to them permanent vacancies in the cadre of UDC have occurred in the year 1975.
F
. .-.,.~
The said appl'ications were rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. Aggrieved by the said rejection the ap.,. G pellants filed service appeals in the Administrative sioe of Delhi High Court. By communication dated 02.03.1988, the service appeals were allowed, but to the extent that the appellants are entitled to be considered for promotion to the grade of UDC and that the promotion, if any, will be prospective only.
H
[2008] 14 S.C.R
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
-fi
A
The appellants still aggrieved, as the promotion and other service benefits were not granted with retrospective effect, approached the Delhi High Court, on Judicial Side, by filing two separate writ petitions.
c 5. The Ld. Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions held that as there were number of vacancies in the·post of UDC in the year 1975-76, the claims of the appellants could and should have been considered in accordance with the statutory rules embodied in Rule VI, Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules and Orders and consequently ordered that the appellants be 0 deemed to have been promoted as U DC w.e.f. 01.01.1976. However, they were denied monetary benefit for the said period ..
The Ld. Single Judge further helo that the High Court of E Delhi and the District & Sessions Judge, Delh.i being. respondent No. 4 and 5 herein, would also give the benefit to the other similarly situated persons like the appellants, who had become graduates before 01.01.1976.
G
H
RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA v. SURAJ 267 BHAN & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-. ---~
-·-\
(
"'· j
.. ,
r',.)
An appeal was also filed by the appellants claiming monA etary benefits, which were denied by the Ld. Single Judge.
8: It is pertinent to mention at this stage that both the appellants after being promoted to the post of UDC in the year D 1988 were further promoted to the post of Assistant, in the year 1995 in case of Shri V.K. Garg and in the year 1997 in case of Shri Rajender Pal Singh.
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S. C.R.
268
I- I:- i ,..__ '
Ir '
J'" I ·-, . 4 r- ~
A 12. So far as Rule VI, of the Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules and Orders is concerned the same was-valid and applicable on the relevant date despite the fact that Section 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 stood repealed by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Law) Order 1937, by virtue of ArB ticle 9 of Order of 1937. Article 9 reads as under:
A
c
E
"The provisions of this Order which adapt or modify Indian laws so as to alter the manner in which, the authority by which, or the law under, or in accordance with which, any powers are exercisable, shall not render invalid any notification, order, commitment, attachment, byelaw, rule or regulation duly made, or issued, or anything duly done, before the commencement, of this Order; and any such notification, order, commitment, attachment, byelaw, rule, regulation or thing may be revoked, varied or undone in the like manner, to the like extent and in the like circumstances as if it had been made, issued or done after the commencement of this Order by the competent authority and under and in accordance with the provisions then applicable to such a case." ·
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 vide Punjab Government, Gaz., March 19, 1999 (PHGN, 1920, SAKA).
F
RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA v. SURAJ 269 BHAN & ORS. [DR MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
> '
~-\
I
/
... ----.,
..
-+
./ ~;
feats equity is a well-known principle of jurisprudence. Delay of A 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.
B
- Thus the question is, whether we should now take away c the benefit which the appellant had actually obtained under the 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.
D
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
270
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
1 <
A 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 c be granted. Obviously, such relief cannot be granted to anybody else.
E
N.J.
Appeals disposed of.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule VI of Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules and Orders survived repeal of s. 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
Whether the claim for promotion to UDC with retrospective effect was barred by delay and laches of 11-12 years.
Whether benefits already received under retrospective promotion could be withdrawn.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba
Suraj Bhan
V.K. Garg
High Court of Delhi
District & Sessions Judge, Delhi
Radha Krishan
R.V. Raveendran
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
