STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 17-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014) 12 S.C.R. 193 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014) 
OCTOBER 17, 2014 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Service jurisprudence - Service matters - Principles to 
A 
B 
be applied - Held: When a particular set of employees is 
given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons C 
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit, or else 
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Art. 
14 - However, the principle is subject to exceptions in the 
form of /aches and delays as well as acquiescence - Where 
judgment of the Court was in rem with intention to give benefit D 
to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the 
Court or not, the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself 
extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person - And 
where judgment was in personam, the benefit of the said 
judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court - On 
E 
facts, respondents challenged the cancellation order of their 
appointment after a period of nine years, on finding that some 
other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled 
had got the relief - There was unexplained delay and /aches 
in filing the claim petition after 9 years - Respondents have 
F 
not joined the service nor working like the employees who 
succeeded in earlier case before the tribunal -Thus, 
respondents cannot be given appointment as of today, after 
a period of 27 years. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Normal rule is that when a particular set 
of employees is given relief by the Court, all other 
identically situated persons need to be treated alike by 
193 
G 
H 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to 
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied 
in servi<;e matters more emphatically as the service 
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time 
B postulates that all similarly situated persons should be 
treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that 
merely because other similarly situated persons did not 
approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated 
differently. However, this principle is subject to well 
c recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays 
as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not 
challenge the wrongful action in their cases and 
acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay 
only because of the reason that their counterparts who 
D had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in 
their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the 
benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly 
situated persons be extended to them. They would be 
treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the 
E acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their 
claim. However, this exception may not apply in those 
cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was 
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all 
similarly situated persons, whether they approached the 
Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation 
F is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit 
thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation 
can occur when the subject matter of the decision 
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of 
regularisation. On the other hand, if the judgment of the 
G Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said 
judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and 
such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or 
it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language 
of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the 
H 
STATE OF U.P. v. ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 
195 
said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that 
A 
their petition does not suffer from either laches and 
delays or acquiescence. [Para 23] [215-H; 216-A-H; 217-
A-B] 
1.2. In the instant case, the selection process took 
8 
place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued 
in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders 
dated June 22, 1987. The respondents did not challenge 
these cancellation orders till the year 1996, i.e. for a period 
of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the 
cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the 
C 
year 1996 only after finding that some other persons 
whose appointme

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