LexRAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA versus SURAJ BHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 260 A . .RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA r~ I v. SURAJ BHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2274 of 2002) B OCTOBER ;3, 2008 [R.V."RAVEENDRAN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] r- High Court Rules and Orders - Chapter 18-A, r. . VI - Pro- . c motion to post of UDC - Claim for, by LDC's with retrospective effect in terms of Rule VI - Permanent vacancies in cadre of UDC arising in 1975 and claim raised 11:.12 years thereafter - In pursuance of the order of High Court, claimants gra_nted promotion with retrospective effect but without monetary ben- D efits - Challenge to, on the ground that claim had become time barred and s. 35(3) of 1918 Act, under which Rule VI framed, stood repealed - Allowed by Division Bench - On ',._.....· appeal, held: Rule VJ was valid and applicable on the relevant date by virtue of Article 9 of Order 1937 - Though there was E considerable delay, on facts, in the interest of equity, benefits of pr9motion with retrospective effect already r~ceived by . claimant not taken away, but not entitled to any additional ben- efit- Punjab Courts Act, 1918- s. 35(3) - Government of In- dia (Adaptation of Indian Law) Order 1937 - Service Law. F · Delay/Laches - Delay of more than a decade in ap- t proaching court in service matters - Effect of, when applicant l seeking equity- Held: Delay defeats equity- Delay of 11-12 years cannot be overlooked as it jeopardises the existing po- sitions of other employees - Equity - Service law. G Appellants-'RS' and 'VK' were appointed as LDC in 1972 and 1969 in the Ministerial Establishment in the Court I~_,,.~ of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. They became ; graduates in the years 1975 and 1974 respectively. The permanent vacancies in the cadre of UDC occurred in H 260 RAJINDER PAL SINGH LAMBA v. SURAJ 261 BHAN & ORS: ___ :T 1975. In 1986 and 1987 appellants sought promotion to A the posts of UDC w.e.f. 1975 in terms of Rule VI, Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules and Orders framed u/s. 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Their claim was rejected . . However, the service appeals on the administrative side were allowed, but the appellants.were directed to be con- B sidered for promotion with prospective effect only. Ag- _ _J grieved, appellants filed writ petitions seeking promotion and other service benefits with retrospective effect. Mean- while, appellants were promoted to the grade of UDC with prospective effect. The Single Judge of High Court held c that the appellants should be deemed to have been pro- moted as UDC w.e.f. 01.01.1976 but without monetary benefit for the said period. It was also held that respon- dent No. 4-High Court of Delhi and respondent No.5-Dis- trict & Sessions Judge, Delhi would also give the benefit D to the other similarly situated persons who had become ..,___( graduates before 01.01.1976. Thereafter, two UDC's work- ing on the post, filed appeals that the claim was barred by laches as the representations were made after a lapse of about 11-12 years; and thats. 35(3) ofthe Punjab Courts E Act, 1918 under which, Rule VI was framed stood re- pealed, thus, Rule VI ceased to exist. Appellants also filed appeals claiming monetary benefits. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the said two UDCs. Hence the appeals. j F Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Rule VI of the Chapter 18-A, High Court Rules and Orders was valid and applicable on the relevant date despite the fact that s. 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 stood repealed by the Government of India (Ad- G ->--\ aptation of Indian Law) Order 1937, by virtue of Article 9 of Order of 1937. Rule VI has been in operation without any amendment therein until 19.03.1999 when fresh rules of promotion were framed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court substituting Rule VI as published in Punjab Gov- H 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A ernment, Gaz., March 19, 1999 (PHGN, 1920, SAKA). [Para 12] [268, ~~B; 268,E-F] 1.2 Respor:ident No. 4 w~s under a fiduciary duty and was required to consider the name of appellants for pro- motion to the post of UDC in accordance with the statu- s tory rule as and when the vacancy arose. Unfortunately, there was lapse on the part of Respondent No. 4 due to which the case .of the appellants for promotion could not be considered. At the same time it cannot be scored out that the appellants slept over their rights, which led to a C considerable d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.