UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus CHAMAN RANA

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 12-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
             CHAMAN RANA
(Civil Appeal No. 2763 of  2018)
MARCH 12, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service law: Promotion – Delayed claim for retrospective
consideration for promotion from the date of supersession i.e. from
the date their junior  had been promoted – Repeated representations
– Delay in approaching court – Held: In service matters, especially
with regard to promotion, there is always an urgency – The aggrieved
must approach the Court at the earliest opportunity, or within a
reasonable time thereafter as third party rights accrue in the
meantime to those who are subsequently promoted – Mere repeated
filing of representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay
in approaching the Court for grant of relief – Any direction to
consider retrospective promotion of the respondents at a belated
passage of time of over 17 to 20 years, would cause serious
administrative chaos quite apart from the financial implications for
the government – Claim not maintainable – Delay/laches.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The cause of action first arose to the respondents
on the date of initial supersession and again on the date when
rejection of their representation was communicated to them, or
within reasonable time thereafter.  The aggrieved must approach
the Court at the earliest opportunity, or within a reasonable time
thereafter as third party rights accrue in the meantime to those
who are subsequently promoted.  Such persons continue to work
on the promotional post, ensconced in their belief of the protection
available to them in service with regard to seniority.  Any belated
interference with the same is bound to have adverse effect on
those already promoted affecting their morale in service also.
Additionally, any directions at a belated stage to consider others
for promotion with retrospective effect, after considerable time
is bound to have serious administrative implications apart from
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 640
640
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
641
the financial burden on the government that would follow by such
orders of promotion. [Para 9] [644-F-G;  645-A]
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu,
(1975) 1 SCC 152 : [1975] 2 SCR 356 – relied on.
2. Mere repeated filing of representations could not be
sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant
of relief.  In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, any
direction to consider retrospective promotion of the respondents
at such a belated passage of time of over 17 to 20 years, would
virtually bring a tsunami in the service resulting in administrative
chaos quite apart from the financial implications for the
government. [Paras 11, 17] [645-G; 647-H; 648-A]
Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59 :
[2009] 16 SCR 249 ; Union of India and Another
v. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) (1) SCC 368 :
[2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 385 ; State of Uttaranchal v.
Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (2013) 12 SCC 179 :
[2013] 9 SCR 609 ; C. Jacob v. Director of Geology
and Mining  (2008) 10 SCC 115 : [2008] 14 SCR 634
– relied on.
Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v. State of
Bombay AIR 1954 Bombay 202 –  approved.
Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC
566 : [2013] 5 SCR 1004 ; Dev Dutt v. Union of India
& Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725 : [2008] 8 SCR 174 –
distinguished.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 5 SCR 1004
   distinguished
Para 3
[2008] 8 SCR 174
   distinguished
Para 3
[1975] 2 SCR  356
    relied on
Para 10
AIR 1954 Bombay 202     approved
Para 11
[2009] 16 SCR 249
    relied on
Para 12
[2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 385   relied on
Para 14
[2013] 9 SCR 609
     relied on
Para 15
[2008] 14 SCR 634
     relied on
Para 16
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. CHAMAN RANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2763
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2017 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.20322 of 2016
WITH
Civil Appeal No.2764 of 2018.
Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Girish Chaudhary (for B.V. Balaram Das),
Advs. for the Appellants.
Rajeev Sharma, Deepak Goel, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals arise from a common order dated 05.05.2017,
directing retrospective consideration for promotion of the respondents
to the post of Second-in-Command and Commandant respectively, in
the Border Security Fo

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