Supreme Court of India
ANIL JOSHI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 182
- Decided
- 9 March 2015
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
A letter that merely outlines additional qualifications does not amount to a enforceable promise, and therefore no promissory estoppel can be invoked against the State where service conditions are governed by statutory rules.
Summary
The petitioners, former Range Officers of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, claimed that a 1983 letter from the Director of Forest Education promised them direct recruitment as Assistant Conservators of Forest, invoking promissory estoppel. The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed their applications, but the High Court set aside that order, holding that the letter created a promise enforceable against the State. The State appealed, arguing that service conditions are governed solely by the statutory Recruitment & Promotion Rules and that no enforceable promise existed. The Supreme Court held that a promissory estoppel claim requires a clear, written promise of a specific benefit, which the 1983 letter did not provide, and that the petitioners could not rely on it to alter their position. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment, restored the Tribunal’s dismissal of the petitions, and allowed the State’s appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the 1983 letter constitutes a promise that can give rise to a claim of promissory estoppel against the State.
- Whether service conditions of a State employee are governed exclusively by the statutory Recruitment & Promotion Rules, precluding reliance on extraneous letters.
- Whether the petitioners altered their position in reliance on the alleged promise, satisfying the requirements of promissory estoppel.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Service lawPromissory estoppelStatutory service rulesRecruitment & Promotion RulesConstitutional lawArticle 227Administrative TribunalAppeal
Judgment
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 351
ANIL JOSHI AND OTHERS A
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6097-6100 of 2009) B
MARCH 9, 2015
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] C
Service Law:
Appointment - Claim by Range Officers in Forest
Department of the State - For appointment to the post of D
Assistant Conservator of Forest and for treating them as 'direct
recruits' in the State Forest Services Class II - On the basis
of a letter sent by Director of Forest Education Forest
Research Institute & College to the Forest Departments of
the States/Union Territories-Applications dismissed by State E
Administrative Tribunal - High Court set aside the order of
Tribunal holding that case of promissory estoppel was made
out against the State in view of the promise in the letter- On
appeal, held: Service conditions of a State employee are
governed by Statutory Rules - Plea of promissory estoppel F
can be set up only when it is proved that the State has
promised the person in writing in express terms to grant
specific benefit and acting upon such promise he has altered
his position - Jn the instant case, no Rules have been shown
which would enable the employees to the relief claimed - G
The letter cannot be construed to be in the nature of promise
and hence cannot be enforced on the plea of promissory
estoppe/ - Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the
Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (Class II) -Administrative H
351
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Law- Promissory Estoppe/.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a settled principle of law that the
service conditions of a State employee are governed by
8
the Statutory Rules framed by the State from time to time.
An employee is, therefore, entitled to enforce his
statutory right recognized in the Rules in relation to his
service condition if it is breached due to any action on
c the part of the State. A plea of promissory estoppel can
be set up by a person against the State only when he is
able to prove with adequate evidence that the State has
promised him in writing in express terms to grant specific
benefit and acting upon such promise he has altered his
D position. In such situation, the State cannot be allowed
to go back to the promise made to such person and he
can enforce the promise made to him. [para 18] [359-C-
E]
E 2. The respondents were not able to show any
Rule, which enabled them to claim a relief of the nature
for which the Original Applications were filed before the
Administrative Tribunal. The contents of the letter could
not be construed as being in the nature of promise made
F by the State to the respondents, so as to enable them to
seek its enforcement on the plea of promissory estoppel.
The letter only prescribed additional qualification
enabling the Forest Rangers to seek admission in the
G State Fo~est Service Course provided they also fulfill
necessary qualifications prescribed in Column 11 of the
Schedule to the Rules. The letters were exchanged
between one State Authority to other and not addressed
to the respondents and secondly, no enforceable right
H of the nature in question was created in respondents'
~
ANILJOSHI AND ORS. v. STA'TE OF HIMACHAL 353
PRADESH AND ORS.
favour on the strength of these letters. [paras 19-20 and A
23) [359-H; 362-A-B; 363-B-C]
Collector of Bombay vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of
Bombay & Ors. 1952 SCR 43 =AIR 1951 SC 469, Union of
India & Ors. Vs. Mis Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. 1968 B
SCR 366 =AIR 1968 SC 718, Mis Motilal Padampat Sugar
Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 1979
(2) SCR 641=AIR1979 SC 621, Surya Narain Yadav& Ors.
Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board &Ors. 1985 (1) Suppl. SCR
605 = (1985) 3 SCC 38 and State of Punjab vs. Nestle India C
Ltd. & Anr. 2004 (2) Suppl. SCR135 = (2004) 6 ~cc 465 -
distinguished.
Case Law Reference
D
1952 SCR43 distinguished para 21
1968 SCR 366 distinguished para 21
1979 (2) SCR 641 distinguished para 21
E
1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 605 distinguished para 21
2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 135 distinguished para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. F
6097-6100 of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2007 of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shim la in Civil Writ Petition
No. 586of1999 and CWP Nos. 66, 118 & 170 of2000.
G
WITH
C.A. Nos. 6101, 6102, 6103 & 6104 of2009.
Himinder Lal, Rajni Ohri Lal for the Appellants. H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Suryanarayana Singh, AAG, Anil Nag, Pragati Neekhra
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Civil Appeal Nos.
B
6101, 6102, 6103 and 6104 of 2009 are filed by the State
against the common judgment dated 15.06.2007 passed by
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ
Petition Nos. 586of1999, 66, 118 and 170 of 2000 wherein
c the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the State
employees working in the Forest Department by setting aside
the judgment/order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the Himachal
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in O.A. Nos. 35 of
1989, 595, 609 and 620of1990.
D
2. So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 6097-6100 of 2009 are
concerned, these appeals are filed by one set of employees
after obtaining leave of this Court because they were not parties
before the High Court or before the Tribunal. According to
E them, consequent upon the declaration given by the High Court
in favour of the respondents in their absence, they felt
aggrieved and hence filed these appeals.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these
F appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state
the relevant facts infra.
4. The respondents herein are the State employees
working in the Forest Department in Himachal Pradesh. They
G were appointed during 1989-1990 and accordingly posted as
"Range Officers" in the Forest Department. Their service
conditions are governed by the Recruitment & Promotion Rules
for the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (Class-II) (in short
"the Rules").
H
ANILJOSHI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 355
PRADESH AND ORS. [AB HAY MANO HAR SAPRE, J.]
5. The respondents, however, claimed that they havhg A
qualified the State Forest Service Course (Diploma Course)
from different colleges were eligible to be posted as ACF
(Assistant Conservator of Forest) and accordingly were eligible
for being treated as "direct recruits" in the H.P. Forest Services
Class II. B
6. The respondents claimed the aforementioned reliefs
essentially on the basis of one letter dated 28.07.1983 sent
by the Director of Forest Education, Forest Research Institute
& College to the Secretary, Forest Department, States/U.Ts. C
According to the respondents, the letter was in the nature of
the promise given to them by the State and since the State
declined to grant the reliefs, they filed O.As before the H.P.
State Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") against D
the State and sought for the following reliefs:
(i) That the respondents may be directed to
appoint petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as HPFS-11
from the date they completed the SFS
Training Course from SFS College E
Dehradum, i.e. April 1, 1986, the day
following the convocation.
(ii) That the respondents may be directed to
appoint petitioner No.3 as H.P.F.S.-11 from F
the date of his joining the SFS Training
Course at SFS College Burnihat, i.e.,
1.11.1986.
(iii) That the petitioners may be declared to G
have been duly selected for SFS Diploma
against direct quota under the existing R
& P Rules and the respondents may be
directed to appoint the petitioners from the
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A due dates as has been done in the cases
of their contemporary direct recruits.
(iv) That the petitioners may be held entitled to
all consequential benefits including
B fixation of seniority and back wages; and
(v) That in the alternative if it is construed that
there are some impediments for
considering the petitioners for
c appointments to HPFS-11 from due dates,
in that event, the respondents may be
directed to take necessary steps for doing
the needful and if the proposed action/
rules create certain difficulties in the cases
D of petitioners, the same may be deemed to
have been relaxed in view of peculiar facts
of this case."
7. The State contested the respondents' claim and
E contended that no promise was ever given to the respondents
and nor any promise was discernible from the letter dated
28. 07 .1983 relied on by the respondents so as to entitle them
to claim the aforementioned reliefs. It was also contended
that since the Rules do not make any provision on the issue in
F question and hence it is not possible to consider grant of such
relief to the respondents. Lastly, it was contended that as and
when any amendment in the Rules is made, the cases of the
respondents and others alike them would be considered on
G their merits at the appropriate stage.
8. The Tribunal, by judgment/order dated 15.12.1999
dismissed the 0.As filed by the respondents. It was held that
the letter date.d 28.07.1983 does not give any right to the
H respondents to claim such reliefs. It was also held that no case
ANILJOSHI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 357
PRADESH AND ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
of promissory estoppel, as was sought to be pressed in service A
by the respondents, was made out in their favour on the strength
of the letter dated 28.07 .1983. It was also held that the cases
of respondents are governed by the Rules and so long as they
do not fulfill the requirements of the Rules, no benefit can be
extended to them. B
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment/order, the
respondents filed writ petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in the High Court. By impugned judgment/
order, the Division Bench allowed the respondents' writ C
petitions and quashed the order of the Tribunal. It was held
that a case of promissory estoppel as pleaded by the
respondents is made out against the State. It was held that if
the State has failed to amend the Rules, no blame can be
attributed to the respondents for such lapse on the part of the D
State and nor can they be deprived of their legitimate rights to
claim the reliefs for which they filed O.As before the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the High Court gave the following
declaration in favour of the respondents: E
"We consequently allow the writ petitions, set-aside
the orders of the learned Tribunal dated 15th
December 1999 and hold that the petitioners are
entitled to be inducted in the H.P. State Forest F
Service-II with effect from the date they successfully
completed the State Forest Service Course
(Diploma Course) in Forestry with all consequential
benefits. No order as to costs."
G
11. It is againstthis order, the State filed C.A.Nos. 6101,
6102, 6103 and 6104 of 2009 and the affected State
employees, who were not parties before the High Court or the
Tribunal filed C.A. Nos. 6097-6100 of 2009.
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A 12. The question which arises for consideration in these
appeals is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the
writ petitions by granting declaration in favour of the
respondent-employees.
B 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant-State whi_le
assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned ord~r
made two-fold submissions. In the first place, learned couns~I
.
contended that the High Court erred in holding that a case of I
·
promissory estoppel was made out in favour of thi;l
C respondents. According to him, neither any promise was give~
by the State and nor it could be spelt out from the contents of
I
the letter dated 28.07.1983. Learned counsel contended that
apart from the letter dated 28.07.1983, the respondents did
not place reliance on any evidence to support their plea of
0
promissory estoppel. Learned counsel further contended that
the plea of promissory estoppel was not applicable to the case
iri hand for the simple reason that service conditions of the
respondents are governed by the Service Rules. In the second
·e 1>1ace, learned counsel contended' that the matter is under
consideration for making appropriate amendment in the R &
P Rules of HPFS-11 and hence so long as appropriate
amendment is not made, the respondents are not entitled to
claim reliefs.
F
14. In contra, the respondents supported the impugned
order and contended that no case is made out to interfere in
the impugned order and hence the appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
G
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the r~cord of the case, we find force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-qtate.
16. As mentioned above, the High Court allowed the
H
ANILJOSHI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 359
PRADESH AND ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
respondents' writ petitions essentially on the ground that a case A
of promissory estoppel was made out against the State and
hence the State is bound by the promise made to the
respondents for grant of reliefs in question.
17. We cannot concur with the view taken by the High B
Court, as in our considered opinion, it is not sustainable both
on facts and in law.
18. It is a settled principle of law that the service
conditions of a State employee are governed by the Statutory c
Rules framed by the State from time to time. An employee is,
therefore, entitled to enforce his statutory right recognized in
the Rules in relation to his service condition if it is breached
due to any action on the part of the State. A plea of promissory
estoppel can be set up by a person against the State only when D
'
he is able to prove with adequate evidence that the State has
promised him in writing in express terms to grant specific
benefit and acting upon such promise he has altered his
position. In such situation, the State cannot be allowed to go
back to the promise made to such person and he can enforce E
the promise made to him.
19. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, we find
that firstly the terms and conditions of the service of the
respondents are governed by the Recruitment & Promotion F
Rules known as R & P Rules of HPFS-11. Secondly, Column 7
of the Schedule to the Rules provides for educational and other
qualifications required for direct recruits, whereas Column 10
of the Schedule to the Rules provides for method of recruitment G
whether by direct or by promotion or transfer. Likewise,
Column 11 of the Schedule to the Rules provides for the
necessary qualification for promotion etc. Thirdly, the
respondents were not able to show any Rule, which enabled
them to claim a relief of the nature for which the 0.As were H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A filed. Fourthly, perusal of the letter dated 28.07.1983 would
go to show that it only provided that the Forest Rangers, who
passed the Ranger Course with Honours, were considered
eligible to secure admission to the 2nd year of the State Forest
Services Course (Diploma Course) in Forestry being
B conducted at the State Forest Service Colleges and such
deserving Forest Rangers if found suitable, could be
considered for admission in the State Forest Services Course.
20. For ready reference, letter dated 28.07.1983 is
C reproduced hereinbelow:
"No.1410/83-DEF/5-2-62(PT.lll)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE & COLLEGES,
D
P.O. NEW FOREST, DEHRADUN-248 006
DATED THE 28TH JULY, 1983.
From
The Director of Forest Education
E Forest Research Institute & College.
To
The Secretary,
Forest Departments,
F States/U.Ts.
Sub: Selection for Diploma Course in Forestry
at the State Forest Service Colleges
G located
at Burmihat, Coimbatore and Dehradun.
Sir,
I have the honour to state that in view of
H
ANIL JOSHI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HI MAC HAL 361
PRADESH AND ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.)
the decision taken by the Council of Forestry A
Research and Education in one of its meeting held
at Delhi on 5.5.1983, the Government of India have
been pleased to convey their approval to the fact
that those trained Forest Rangers who have/had
passed the Rangers Course with honours are B
eligible for admission to the 2nd year of the State
Forest Service Course (Diploma Course) in
Forestry being conducted at the State Forest
Service Colleges located at Bumihat (Assam-
Meg halaya), Coimbatore(Tamil Nadu) and
c
Dehradun. It is requested that the matter may kindly
be given wide publicity and the cases of deserving
trained Forest Rangers may be considered and
recommended accordingly for admission in the D
State Forest Service Course.
Yours faithfully,
E
Sd/-
(C.S. Kirpekar)
Director of Forest Education
Forest Research Institute & Colleges ..
F
Copy forwarded to the Chief Conservator of
Forests, ........ .for favour of information and similar
action.
Sd/-
G
(C.S. Kirpekar)
Director of Forest Education
Forest Research Institute & Colleges."
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A The contents of the letter quoted above, in our opinion, could
not be construed as being in the nature of promise made by
the State to the respondents, so as to enable them to seek its
enforcement on the plea of promissory estoppel. The letter, in
our view, only prescribed additional qualification enabling the
B Forest Rangers to seek admission in the State Forest Service
Course provided they also fulfill necessary qualifications
prescribed in Column 11 of the Schedule to the Rules.
21. In our considered opinion, the High Court, therefore,
C committed an error in placing reliance on the judgments of
this Court rendered in Collector of Bombay vs. Municipal
Corporation of the City of Bombay & Ors., AIR 1951 SC
469, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mis Anglo Afghan Agencies
etc. AIR 1968 SC 718, M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills
0
Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1979
SC 621, Surya Narain YadaV & Ors. Vs. Bihar State
Electricity Board & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 38 and State of
Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd. &Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 465, which
E dealt with the cases of promissory estoppel. The High Court
failed to see the distinction between the facts of the case in
hand and the facts which were subject matter of the cases
relied on. The case in hand being a service matter, the rights
of the parties were required to be decided in the light of the
F statutory service Rules applicable to the parties .. So far as the
decisions relied on by the High Court were concerned, those
were the cases where this Court laid down the law relating to
the promissory estoppel operating in general field inter se
citizen and the State. None of these decisions dealt with the
G cases arising out of service law. The principle of promissory
estoppel laid down therein, therefore, could not be applied to
the case in hand for giving benefit to the respondents.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to
H
ANILJOSHI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 363
PRADESH AND ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
certain letters, contended that a case of promissory estoppel A
was made out against the State entitling the respondents to
claim the reliefs. We find no force in this submission.
23. We have perused the contents of the letters referred
to in the impugned order and find that firstly, the letters were B
exchanged between one State Authority to other and not
addressed to the respondents and secondly, no enforceable
right of the nature in question was created in respondents'
favour on the strength of these letters.
c
24. Learned counsel for the respondents then urged
that appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 6097-6100 of 2009 have
no locus to file the appeal as none of their service rights were
adversely affected. This submission need not to be gone into
on its merits in this appeal in the light of the decision rendered D
in C.A. Nos. 6101, 6102, 6103 and 6104 of 2009-appeals
filed by the State against the impugned judgment/order.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents, lastly, brought
to our notice that pending appeals, the respondents were given E
some benefits independent to the impugned judgment/order.
If that be so, then we prefer to express no opinion on any such
issue because it was not gone into at any stage of the
proceedings. We, however, make it clear that we only
examined the issue which was decided by the Tribunal and F
the High Court, therefore, this order would not come in the
way of the parties if, in the meantime, they or anyone received
any benefit independent of the controversy involved in this case.
Needless to say, so far as this case is concerned, the cases G
of the respondents can always be considered for their
promotion etc. in the light of existing Rules if they fulfill the
qualifications laid down or as per any amended Rules, if made.
26. In the light of foregoing discussion, we cannot uphold H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A the judgment/order passed by the High Court which deserves
to be set aside.
27. The appeals thus succeed and are hereby allowed.
The impugned judgment/order dated 15.06.2007 passed by
B the High Court in the writ petitions is set aside. The writ petitions
filed by the respondents stand dismissed resulting in
restoration of the order passed by the Tribunal, which rightly
dismissed the 0.As filed by the respondents.
c 28. In the light of the decision in C.A. Nos. 6101, 6102,
6103 and 6104 of 2009, C.A. Nos. 6097-6100 of 2009 are
disposed of.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service law"Sign in to search