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

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H

p. 264 Copy page pinpoint

A DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,. J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 6878 of 2002

2Copy pinpoint2. 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 · . B two Writ Petitions were allowed. . . v

3Copy pinpoint3. The .grievance of the appeHants as ias .raised· in the 1

·. Writ Petitions, in nutshell·, i~.as.follows:""· (. · S/Shri Rajendera Singh Lamba andV.K Garg, appellants· G herein were appointed as LowerDiyision Clerks (for short 'LDC') on 01. 10: 1972. and24.11.1969 respectivel'y, in th.e Ministeri<il Establishment of the District & Sessions Judge; Delhi. During .. their employment they co111pleted ·thei'r graduation from belhi University in the year 1975 and 1974 respectively: S/Shri o . Rajinderpal Singh Lamba and V.K. Garg on 24.12.1986 and. 02.01.1987 respectively submitted their applications.to the. Dis-· trict & Sessions Juqge, Delhi see1<ing:promotion'.to the posts of· Upper Division Clerk (.for short 'UDC'), The said. applications were maqe seeking'benefitofHuJe VI, Chapter.18-A; High.Court. E Rules and Orde.rs,Vof. 1. frame.d under. $edion·35(3) ofthe . ~· Punjab Courts Act, 1918. 'r~e said.Rule reads as under:- "Promo.tion--(1) Appointmehtsto.the hrgher grades of the ministerial estabtishmentsh.ould.ordinarily bemade· by seniority from lower grades, provided· thadhe official who F would th.us rec~ive promotion poss~sses the prescrib¢d. · ,,,.. . education.al qualifications and is olhel'Wise fi:t to. perform . the duties to which he will be prom9ted;.f.orwhich purpose tests m~y be .imposed, This rule does nofc.ipply to such · posts as that. of stenographer; ·tor which speciat qualifications are riee~ed; but preference should be given to officers with such qualifications who are already working . ·in the lower. grades; · · ~·

Provided t·hat permanent vacandes In the 75~5-125 grade .shall be filled by the Di'strict & Sessions Judges in the H . following rota~ion:~- ·

p. 265 Copy page pinpoint

BHAN & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] - y (i) By selection on merit out of graduates who have atheist A I two years' experience in the work of the office, if there is no suitable graduate who fulfills this condition an 'outsider' graduate may be appointed, but he must be one who normally resides within the jurisdiction of the District & Sessions Judge. 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." F .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. 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

p. 266 Copy page pinpoint

-f- A The appellants still aggrieved, as the promotion and other i service benefits were not granted with retrospective effect, ap- proached the Delhi High Court, on Judicial Side, by filing two separate writ petitions.

4Copy pinpoint4. In the meantime acting upon the a~ove-mentior:ied com- B munication dated 02.03.1988 the appellants viz. V.K. Garg and Rajinderpal Singh Lamba were promoted to the grade of UDC with effectfrom 1.4.1988 and 30; 1.1992 respectively, with pro- spective effect. c 5. The Ld. Single Judge while disposing of the writ peti- tions 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 statu- tory 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 UDC w.e.f. 01.01.1976. However, they were denied monetary benefit for the said pe- riod .. The Ld. Single Judge further helo that the High Court of E Delhi and the District & Sessions Judge, Delh.i being. respon- dent 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.

6Copy pinpoint6. The order of the td. Single Judge was challenged by F two of the private respondents viz. Shri Suraj. Bhan and Radha Krishan, who were working on the post of UDC at that point of time, primarily on the below mentioned grounds::- i) The representations were made after a lapse of about 11/12 years, thus the claim was barred by !aches;· G ii) Section 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act,' 1918 under which, Rule VI was framed stood. repealed by the Government of India (Adaptation of indian Law) Ord~t 1937 as a result of which the said rule ceased to ' ' H exist.

p. 267 Copy page pinpoint

BHAN & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] -. ---- ~ An appeal was also filed by the appellants claiming mon- A etary benefits, which were denied by the Ld. Single Judge.

7Copy pinpoint7. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the pri- vate respondents, respondent No. 1 and 2 herein, primarily on the ground that since the rule of promotion with retrospective effect involves the issue of seniority as well, the said issue and B

-·-\ question cannot be re-opened after lapse of a considerable time and reasonable period to disturb the settled position. It was therefore held that the writ petition was liable to be rejected. On the issue of validity and applicability of Rule VI it was held that the said rule was applicable at the relevant trme as the same c was saved by virtue of Article 9 of Order of 1937. As against the said impugned order this appeal was filed. 8: It is pertinent to mention at this stage that both the ap- pellants 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.

9Copy pinpoint9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts we heard learned couns_el for the parties and perused the record. E

10Copy pinpoint10. The learqed counsel for the appellants placing reliance on Rule VI contended that as per the said statutory rule which was valid and applicable at the relevant time the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were obliged to consider appellants for promotion "'j· to the grade of UDC when there were number of vacancies in F the said grade in the year 1975-76. He further argued that as the rule was statutory in nature the benefit of the said rule can- .. , not be denied on the ground of delay and laches .

11Copy pinpoint11. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2, G viz. Shri Suraj Bhan and Radha Krishan who filed the appeal r',.) before the Division Bench of the High Court. We were told that both of them have retired during .the pendency of present pro- ceedings. Counsel appearing for the remaining respondents reiterated the stand taken before the Division Bench. H

p. 268 Copy page pinpoint

12Copy pinpoint12. So far as Rule VI, of the Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules and Orders is concerned the same was-valid and appli- cable on the relevant date despite the fact that Section 35(3) of I- the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 stood repealed by the Government I:- of India (Adaptation of Indian Law) Order 1937, by virtue of Ar- i ,..__ B ticle 9 of Order of 1937. Article 9 reads as under: ' "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 c 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, Ir 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." · E 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 I J'" VI vide Punjab Government, Gaz., March 19, 1999 (PHGN, ·-,

F 1920, SAKA). . 4

13Copy pinpoint13. The Respondent No. 4 was under a fiduciary duty and r- was required to consider the name of appellants for promotion to the post of UDC in accordance with the statutory rule as and ~ when the vacancy arose. Unfortunately, there was lapse on the part of the Respondent No. 4 due to which the case of the ap- pellants for promotion could not be considered.

14Copy pinpoint14. At the same time it cannot be scored out that the ap- pellants slept over their rights, which led to a considerable de- lay i.e. delay of 11-12 years on the part of the appellants to give representation for promotion to the grade of UDC. Delay de-

p. 269 Copy page pinpoint

BHAN & ORS. [DR MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] > ' feats equity is a well-known principle of jurisprudence. Delay of 11 to 12 years cannot be overlooked when an applicant before A

the court seeks equity and specially in the case of service mat- ters as in the said case it jeopardises the existing positions of a very large number of members of that service.

15Copy pinpoint15. The appellants, however, submitted that pursuant to B 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.

16Copy pinpoint16. Thus the question is, whether we should now take away c 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. D ... 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 E delay and laches before the Ld. Single Judge and the said is- sue 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 F -+ said respondents were obliged to follow the same.

18Copy pinpoint18. As of today respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no griev- ance against the appellants as they stood retired and no ben- efit will accrue upon them even if the order denying the promo- tion to the appellants to the post of UDC w.e.f 01.01.1976 is G 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 ben- efits of promotion with retrospective effect for nearly 10 years. H

p. 270 Copy page pinpoint

19Copy pinpoint19. Though it cannot be denied that there was consider- 1 <

able delay and the observations of the Division Bench in this regard cannot be faulted with but in the peculiar facts and cir- cumstances 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 ben- efit 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.

20Copy pinpoint20. We make it clear that all the observations made herein are our views and opinion in the peculiar facts and circum- stances of the present case. The questions of law raised be- D fore 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.

21Copy pinpoint21. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. No order as to cost. E N.J. Appeals disposed of.