THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus RAJMATI SINGH

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 410 · Decided: 07-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT, J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
RAJMATI SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 9329 of 2022)
DECEMBER 07, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service Law – Termination – Claim for reinstatement – Belated
claim – Termination of Respondent in the year 1974 – She made
several representations, one after the other, but did not approach
any judicial or quasi-judicial forum – After enactment of Right to
Information Act, 2005, whereunder the State Information
Commission came to be constituted, the respondent moved before
the said Commission – The Commission passed an Order on
05.03.2009 asking the appellant-authorities to communicate the
decision on the representations of respondent – In this backdrop
communication dated 04.06.2009 was issued by the District Basic
Education Officer, which according to respondent revived her
pending claim – Held: On facts, claim of respondent was stale, highly
belated, time barred – The same ought not to have been entertained
by the State Public Services Tribunal or the High Court after a span
of over three decades – Respondent like any vigilant citizen,
especially given that she does not belong to economically or socially
backward segments of the society, was expected to assert her rights
before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time – Repeated
representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it
had already arisen in the past – Respondent was required to seek a
declaration of her continuity or have a writ of mandamus issued
for her reinstatement – She did not do either – State Information
Commission is not a forum which either could declare the rights of
the respondent or grant any service benefits – Respondent’s move
before the State Information Commission was thus an exercise in
futility – Respondent slept over her rights for a long duration of
over 33 years – She waived her rights to raise objections in this
regard and is deemed to have abandoned her employment –
Challenge of respondent to the deemed order of termination or
abandonment of employment before the State Public Services
Tribunal in 2010 was hopelessly time-barred u/s 5 of the 1976 Act –
 [2022] 14 S.C.R. 410
410
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
411
However in the circumstances of the case, appellants also partially
responsible for engendering hope in respondent at a juncture when
she was nearing the age of superannuation – Appellants to pay a
lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- – U.P. Public Services
(Tribunal) Act, 1976 – s.5 – Right to Information Act, 2005.
Service Law – Judicial approach in service matters – Held:
Undue sympathy and a perceived liberal approach by a judicial
forum can lead to significant adverse consequences – It not only
gives rise to illegitimate expectations in the mind of fence sitting
employees, but also leads to undue burdens on the public exchequer
– Indulgence shown by a Court solely on equitable considerations,
dehors the law, breeds indiscipline in public services and incorrigible
employees start looking for a dividend on the period of their absence
or for dereliction of duty.
Service Law – Service disputes – Appropriate forum – Held:
State Information Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service
disputes – Right to Information Act, 2005.
C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Other
(2008) 10 SCC 115 : [2008] 14 SCR634 – relied on.
Basic Shiksha Parishad and Another v. Sugna Devi
(Smt.) and Others (2004) 9 SCC 68 : [2003] 6 Suppl.
SCR 759 and Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh
(2008) 8 SCC 652 : [2008] 12 SCR 903 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 759
referred to
Para 16
[2008] 12 SCR 903
referred to
Para 18
[2008] 14 SCR634
relied on
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9329
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Service Bench
No.826 of 2014.
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Krishnanand Pandey, Advs. for the
Appellants.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RAJMATI SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv., Mareesh Pravir Sahay, Simaranjeet Singh
Rekhi, Shubham Kumar, Ms. Awantika, Sachin Kharb, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
JUDGMENT
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities in the Education
Department are aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed by
a Divisi

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