CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS versus RAM GOPAL

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 30-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. POWER
CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS
v.
RAM GOPAL
(Civil Appeal No. 852 of 2020 etc.)
JANUARY 30, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Service Law:
Termination of service – On account of finding irregularities
in the selection process of the employees including that of the
respondent – One of the terminated candidates was granted relief
of continuation of his service – Thereafter respondent filed writ
petition challenging termination of his service – Writ Petition was
allowed by Single Judge of High Court holding that the respondent’s
case was squarely covered by the case of the other employee who
was granted relief by the Court – Special appeal by the employer
was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Held: Termination order cannot be said to be non-
reasoned – Termination order of the respondent could not have
been set aside drawing parity from the case of another employee,
as the case of another employee was decided on equitable grounds
– Equity acts in personam and not in rem – Equity.
Limitation:
Limitation in filing writ petitions – Held: Limitation does not
strictly apply to proceedings u/Ars. 32 or 226 of the Constitution –
However, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable
lapse of time – Writ Courts ought to be reluctant in exercising their
discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs
and allowed illegalities to foster – However, such principles do not
apply to the judgments delivered in-rem – In the present case, the
judgment granting relief to the other employee in setting aside his
termination order, does not have the ingredient of a judgment in-
rem, hence cannot come to respondent’s rescue.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 514
514
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned order of the High Court is legally
untenable. The Division Bench’s finding that “no reason has been
assigned in the order of cancellation of appointment of the
respondent”, is vividly erroneous. Termination of another
candidate was held legal only on account of pending litigation and
interim directions of courts that he had spent 17 years in
employment of UPPCL-employer. Paying heed to these equitable
considerations, and not as a matter of any legal right, the High
Court had urged the employer to sympathetically consider the
case of that employee for retention in employment. This
conclusion of the High Court has undoubtedly attained finality.
Whereas that employee had remained in service for over
seventeen years (except a brief period between August to
November in 1978) and had fought his case tooth and nail, the
respondent has not been in the employment of UPPCL since 1978.
The fact-situation in that case was unique and altogether different
from that of the respondent and there arises no reason to seek
or grant parity. Even otherwise, it is a settled canon of common
law that equity acts in personam and not in rem. Hence, there
could be no extension of parity between them. [Paras 10, 11, 12
and 13][519-D-F; 520-A-E]
2.1 Services of the respondent were terminated within
months of his appointment, in 1978. Statedly, the respondent made
a representation and served UPPCL with a legal notice in 1982,
however such feeble effort does little to fill the gap between when
the cause of action arose and he chose to seek its redressal (in
1990). The prolonged delay of many years ought not to have been
overlooked or condoned. [Para 14][520-F-G]
2.2 Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to
proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India,
nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an
unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays
and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions,
and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their
discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over
wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be
CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. POWER
CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS v. RAM GOPAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their
convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike
with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been
restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which
writ remedies can be enfo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.