LexANIL JOSHI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 351 ANIL JOSHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 6097-6100 of 2009) MARCH 9, 2015 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND A B 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 8 service conditions of a State employee are governed by 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. WITH C.A. Nos. 6101, 6102, 6103 & 6104 of2009. G Himinder Lal, Rajni Ohri Lal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.