Supreme Court of India
CHAMAN LALversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 398
- Decided
- 16 May 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
The decree in the case of the similarly situated person is void for lack of impleadment of the State and cannot be used to claim benefits, and Article 14 does not provide for negative equality, so the appellant is not entitled to retirement benefits.
Summary
Chaman Lal, a former truck driver employed by the Fish Farmers Development Agency (a society) and later absorbed into a government department, sought retirement benefits based on his total service. The lower courts dismissed his claim, and he argued that a similarly situated individual, Charanjit Lal, had obtained a pension decree from a civil court. The Supreme Court held that the decree in Charanjit Lal's case was not maintainable because the State of Punjab was not impleaded, rendering the suit collusive and void. Moreover, the Court clarified that Article 14 does not create a right to "negative equality"; a wrongful benefit conferred on one person cannot be extended to others. Consequently, the appellant’s claim for retirement benefits was rejected and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a decree obtained in a suit where the State was not impleaded can be relied upon for a similar claim against the State.
- Whether Article 14 of the Constitution can be invoked to claim the same benefit as a similarly situated person (negative equality).
- Whether service rendered in a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 qualifies as government service for pension under the Punjab Civil Services Rules.
- Whether the suit against the Fish Farmers Development Agency was maintainable under CPC Section 79 and Order 1 Rules 9 & 27 and Article 300 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 1 Rule 27, s. Order 1 Rule 9, s. Section 79
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 300
- Societies Registration Act, 1860
Subjects
service lawretirement benefitspensionArticle 14negative equalityimpleadmentState as partyCPC Section 79Societies Registration Actgovernment employeecollusive decree
Judgment
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 311
CHAMAN LAL A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2273 of 2011)
MAY 16, 2014.
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ)
Service law - Retiral benefits - Claim of, by truck driver
- On basis of relief granted to a similarly situated person in
a suit by civil court - Held: Judgment and decree in the case C
of similarly situated person seems to be collusive and thus,
the said suit not maintainable - More so, Article 14 does not·
envisage for negative equality - In case a wrong benefit has
been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise it
may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others - Truck o
driver's claim cannot be accepted - Order of the High Court
upheld - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 79, 0. 1 rr 9 and 27 -
Article 300 - Relief sought against State or Union of India - E
lmpleadment as a party - Held: Is necessary - In case party
is not impleaded, suit is not maintainable for want of
necessary party - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 300.
The appellant was employed as truck driver in Fish
Farmers Development Agency, a society registered F
under the Societies Act, for eighteen years. He was
declared surplus and thereafter, he was absorbed in the
Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development. He
served for four years and superannuated. The appellant
filed a suit seeking retial benefits and the same was G
dismissed. He had contended that similarly situated
person 'CL' had got a decree from the civil court. The
Additional District Judges as also High Court upheld the
311 H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20141 6 S.C.R.
A order passed by the civil court. Hence the instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It is shocking that in the suit by 'CL'·
similarly situated person, for the reasons best known to
B him, did not implead the State of Punjab as a defendant.
The suit had been filed only against the Fish Farmers
Development Agency and the Chief Executive Officer of
th,e said Agency. No one else was added as a party. Relief
of pension was sought against the State of Punjab, which
c was not even impleaded as a party in the suit. In fact, no
relief was sought against the defendants therein. The suit
was decreed on the admission of the defendant. The suit
was wrongly decreed. Thus, the State was not bound by
such a judgment and decree. Further, the said suit is not -
_maintainable as it is a settled legal proposition that in
0
view of the provisions of Section 79 and Order 1 Rules 9
& 27 CPC 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
E case it is not so impleaded, the suit is not maintainable
for want of necessary party. Therefore, the judgment is
not worth putting any reliance on it. It is equally amazing
to find that State of Punjab implemented the judgment.
[Paras 11-13] [318-F-G; 319-A-B, E; 320-A]
F Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member
Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 786; The
District Collector, Srikakulam & Ors. v. Bagathi Krishna Rao
& Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2617; Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager,
Northern Railway, New Delhi & Anr. AIR 1977 SC 1701; Chief
G Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector & Ors. AIR
2003 SC 1805 - referred to.
1.2. In view of the fact that the judgment and decree
in the case of 'CL' seems to be collusive and in a suit
which itself was not maintainable, the submission of the
H
CHAMAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB 313
appellant cannot be accepted. More so, it is also settled A
legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for
negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been
conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise it
may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others.
[Paras 14, 15] [320-~-C] s
Basawaraj & Anr. v. The Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer AIR
2014 SC 746 - referred to.
Cases Law Reference:
AIR 1963 SC 786 Referred to Para 11 c
AIR 2010 SC 2617 Referred to Para 12
AIR 1977 SC 1701 Referred to Para 12
AIR 2003 SC 1805 Referred to Para 12 D
AIR 2014 SC 746 Referred to Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL
No.2273 of 2011.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2009 in RSA
No. 2299/2009 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh.
Dinesh Kumar Garg, Dhananjay Garg for the Appellant.
F
Jagjit Singh Chhabra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred
against the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.12.2009 c
in 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
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A 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.
B 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
C Agency from 16. 7 .1980 to 20.5.1998. After being declared
surplus, he was absorbed in the Animal Husbandry, Fisheries
and Dairy Development, Punjab on 1.6.1998 and stood
superannuated on 31.~.2002.
D B. 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 wa~ dismissed vide judgment and decree
E dated 23.5.2006.
C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.122
of 2006. It was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
16.9.2008.
F D. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Regular Second
Appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment
and decree.
Hence, this appeal.
G 3. Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that as the appellant had been
absorbed in the Fish Farmers Development Agency, he is
entitled to take the benefit of entire service rendered in various
places. Thus, the courts below committed an error in refusing
H the relief of pension and other retrial benefits. The appellant had
CHAMAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB 315
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
been given a hostile discrimination while a similarly situated A
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.
4. Per contra, Shri Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned counsel B
appearing for the State has opposed the appeal contending
that the Fish Farmers Development Agency is a. society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as Act 1860). If a civil court had granted
the relief by mistake or the plaintiff therein succeeded in getting C
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 D
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 E
(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 F
under the Act 1860.
7. The Trial Court considered the issue of entitlement of
the appellant for the aforesaid relief and held as under:
"Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court G
in the State of Punjab & Anr. v. ShriiJ.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 H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A 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.
B 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 defendai;iUState argued that the
plaintiff cannot claim benefit of service rendered by him
c 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
D High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1501 of 2001 between
the parties and the copy of order is Ex.03 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
E 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 Pµnjab & Haryana High Court is reproduced as
under:-
'It has been stated in the preliminary objection that
G 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
H
CHAMAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB 317
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Punjab. In fact, the petitioner was appointed as a 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.'
B
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 caMot be held to be in service under the C
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."
ll The First Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire D
evidence, on the issue. Afte~ 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 E
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
F
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." G
In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed.
9. The High Court while dealing with the issue held as
under: H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A "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
B of pensionary benefits. That concurrent finding o_f 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 additional increment in the form
of proficiency step up after 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of the
c 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
D appellant does not deserve any relief whatsoever and the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Coming to the next submission advanced by Shri Garg
regarding the discrimination as a similar relief claimed by the
E appellant has been granted to 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,
F 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
G 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).
H
CHAMAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB 319
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
12. We fail to understand how the suit was maintainable A
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 B
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, Srikakalam & Ors. v.
Bagathi Krishna Rao & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2617, wherein after
placing reliance on earlier judgments of this Court particularly, C
Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, New
Delhi & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 1701; and Chief ConseNator of
Forests, Govt. ofA.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
0
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 and admitted the claim of the plaintiff therein. E
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 defendant no.1 agency,
F
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 G
also Government er:nployee."
(Emphasis added)
So here is a suit which was decreed on the admission of
the defendant against whom no relief was prayed for, and H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A w1mout 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
8
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
C 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong
benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or
otherwise it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others.
This Court in Basawaraj & Anr. v. The Sp/. Land Acquisition
Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 considered this issue and held as
D under:
"ft 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
E
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,
F it cannot be perpetuated. 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
G 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
H
CHAMAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB 321
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. A
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, Mis. Anand
Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 S0565; B
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 C
appellant worth acceptance.
The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed. D
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