LexCHAMAN LAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 311 CHAMAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2273 of 2011) MAY 16, 2014. [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 B 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 - 0 _maintainable as it is a settled legal proposition that in 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. H 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 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 AIR 2010 SC 2617 AIR 1977 SC 1701 AIR 2003 SC 1805 AIR 2014 SC 746 Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to Referred to Para 11 Para 12 Para 12 Para 12 Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2273 of 2011. 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. Jagjit Singh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.