D. BOOPALAN & ORS. versus MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. BOARD & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 02-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.,___ 
"'( 
D. BOOPALAN & ORS. 
A 
v. 
MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. BOARD & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 2007 
--t 
[B.N. AGRA WAL, AL TAMAS KABIR AND LOKESHW AR 
B 
>-
SINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Service Law-Accelerated seniority-Provided by amendment of 
Leave Regulations to those who acquired Post Graduate qualification c 
during service-Benefit withdrawn by subsequent amendment-
Withdrawal challenged by those who had pursued the study in view of 
the amendment-Withdrawal set aside by Single Judge, while 
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court-On appeal, held: The 
). 
candidates pursuing the higher studies acquired the right of accelerated D 
1 
seniority_:_However, such right cannot be enforced against persons 
senior to them in the cadre and were already possessing the higher 
qualification-In order to balance the equity between the two groups 
of officers and in order to give harmonious construction to the two 
amendments, the candidates who would get benefit of accelerated E 
seniority, to be placed immediately below the last person senior to them 
with higher qualification-The beneficiaries not entitled to benefit of 
full pay during 'study leave '-Madras Metropolitan WS.S. Board 
Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1978-Regulation 9. 
; 
Regulation 9 of Madras Metropolitan W.S.S. Board Employees F 
r 
(Leave) Regulations, 1978 was amended in 1993 by Respondent-
Board to the effect that a candidate who would acquire Post Graduate 
qualification, while in service, if got First Class, would be given two 
years extra weightage in terms of seniority and those who would 
acquire second class would get one year extra weightage. The said Q, 
...+:> 
benefit was withdrawn by a subsequent amendment in 1995. The 
benefit was also withdrawn in respect of those who were undergoing 
advance study. 
879 
H 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellants, affected by the 1995 amendment, filed Writ Petition 
on the ground that the promises made in the amendment of 1993 
could not be resiled from, so far as those who had acted on the basis 
of that promise were concerned. The Writ Petition was allowed by 
Single Judge of High Court. Two writ appeals were filed, one by the 
B additional respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and another by Post-Graduate 
Engineer affected by the order of Single Judge. Division Bench of 
High Court set aside the judgment of Single Judge. Hence the present 
appeals. 
Respondents interalia contended that amended resolution of 
C 1995 had not been given retrospective effect, but had be.en made 
applicable to those who were yet to acquire higher qualification 
entitling them to the benefits under the amended Regulation of 1993; 
and that the appellants having not acquired the higher qualification, 
no right accrued to them and at the best they could have a legitimate 
D expectation of being given such accelerated seniority, and in no case 
doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply to them. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the amended Leave Regulations 
E of 1995 have not been given retrospective effect but bad been made 
applicable to those who were yet to acquire higher qualifications, 
having regard to the fact that the appellants who had acted on the 
basis of the incentive held out by the amended 1993 Leave 
Regulations, would still be affected adversely in view of the same. 
F 
While the appellants have acquired a right of accelerated seniority, 
such right cannot be enforced against such persons who were senior 
to them in t.he cadre and had already acquired the higher 
qualification. Such officers or some of them may be rendered junior 
to the appellants once the benefit under the amended 1993 Leave 
G Regulations was extended to the said juniors. The Respondent 
authorities possibly did not think of such a situation while amen~ing 
the Leave Regulations in 1993. The situation that has now been 
reached on account of such amendment in the Leave Regulations 
of1993 has created a wholly inequitable situation so far as the other 
H officers in the cadre who were senior to the appellants and had also 
j-
D. BOOP ALAN v. MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. 
881 
>--
BOARD 
~ 
acquired the higher qualification earlier than the appellants are A 
concerned. Since the claims of either of the affected parties cannot 
be discarded, the equities between the two has to be balanced so that 
the amended Leave Regulations of 1993 and 1995 can be construed 
harmoniously so far as the two groups are concer

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