TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (7) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to arrange these matters for facility of disposal in the following categories : (1) LPA NO. 402 of 1988 itself. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) against the judgment and order passed in C.W.P, No. 1903 of 1987 decided on January 25, 1988. (2) Matters directly connected with LPA No.402 of 1988. These are LPA Nos. 403 to 411 of 1988 and LPA No. 309 of 1988 which have been preferred by the Board against the common judgment and order as passed in C.W.P. Nos. 497, 1440, 1716, 1806, 1812, 1942, 2476, 2609 and 3145 of 1987, which were allowed along with C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987. L.P.A. No. 309 of 1988 has been preferred by a loosing party respondent in C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987. L.P.A. No. 547 of 1988 is also against the decision in C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987 and has been preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board Diploma-Holders Association after obtaining leave of the Court, since it was claimed that neither the Association-Appellant nor majority of its diploma-holders members had been impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Kumar Sharma MANU/SC/0481/1986 : AIR 1987 SC 367 : 1986 Lab IC 2076. He prayed inter alia, for reliefs of implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (supra) retroactively, not only in his case but also in cases of persons similarly situated irrespective of the fact whether such employees had approached the Court or not. 5. The petitioner additionally projected that the conditions of service of the petitioner were to begin with governed by the Punjab Public Works Department (Electricity Branch) Provincial Service Class-III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952, made by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Later, when the Punjab State Electricity Board was established under Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the same set of rules continued to govern the conditions of service of the petitioners even after coming into existence of the Board. According to the aforesaid service rules, promotions from the post of Lineman to the post of Line Superintendent (now designated as Junior Engineer-II) suggestedly are to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit (though....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs; and further directing the Board to consider the petitioner and other Linemen on the basis of seniority-cum-merit for the posts of Line Superintendents and on such consideration if he and the Linemen are found suitable for promotion, then promotion be given to them retrospectively with effect from the date their juniors were promoted and finally to grant them the consequential relief of arrears of salary and fixation of pay etc. on the said basis. 7. The aggrieved Board on preferring L.P. A. No. 402 of 1988 persuaded the Motion Bench comprising of S. S. Kang and S. D. Bajaj, JJ. on April 22, 1988, in granting stay of the operation of the impugned judgment in the meanwhile. The said order was passed in the presence of the parties counsel. The same order was repeated in the connected LPAs. 8. A dramatic development took place in the meantime which is worthy of immediate notice. 9. Kuldip Singh and 13 others linemen of the Board filed C.W.P. No. 8167 of 1987 claiming identical relief on the strength of Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case 1986 Lab IC 2076 (SC) (supra). On February 10, 1988, in the presence of the counsel for the parties, the Motion Bench comprising of G.C. Mit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter is correct. A bunch of similar writ petitions had earlier been decided by M. R. Agnihotri, J. on 25-1-1988 and in some of the writ petitions, some of the Diploma-holders got impleaded as respondents and after hearing the view points of the Diploma-holders and non-Diploma-holders, the decision of the Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0481/1986 : AIR 1987 SC 367 : 1986 Lab IC 2076 was followed, because the inter se dispute between these groups was decided by the Supreme Court, and this Court was merely to implement it, which was so ordered by M. R. Agnihotri, J. Since the decision of the Supreme Court was followed by M. R. Agnihotri, J. and facts before us being the same, we followed that decision and gave relief to the non-Diploma-holders linemen. Against the decision of M. R. Agnihotri, J. Punjab State Electricity Board had got its L.P.A. admitted. The Diploma-holders association filed separate L.P.A. with leave to file and it was granted leave and the L.P.A. has been admitted. Therefore, the controversy between the Diploma-holders and non-Diploma-holders is in L. P.A., which is now referred to Full Bench, and whatever decision is rendered therein, would be binding on the Dipl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions. The Letters Patent Bench, however, on May 5, 1980, allowed the appeal on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shujatali v. Union of India MANU/SC/0371/1974 : AIR 1974 SC 1631 : (1974 Lab IC 1103). That judgment is Sukhdev Raj Sharma v. Punjab State Electricity Board (1980) 3 SLR 75 : 1980 Lab IC 943 (Punj & Har). The Bench took the view that if the Board thought it fit as a matter of policy taking into consideration all factors that non-diploma-holder Line Superintendents were fit enough to perform the duties of Junior Engineers after promotion, there was absolutely no warrant or justification to debar them from competing with their counterparts having diploma as their qualification on the basis of equality and parity. 15. having suffered defeat in Sukhdev Raj Sharma's case (supra) on May 5, 1980, the Board had to meet another litigation of the same kind but in an ordinary Civil Court. One Ravinder Kumar Sharma 1986 Lab IC 2076 (SC), on July 17, 1980, filed a suit for declaration challenging two orders dated July 12, 1977 and August 17, 1977, promoting respectively the arrayed defendants Nos. 3 to 7 from the posts of Linemen to the posts of Line Supe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment was suspended. It was ordered that any promotions which may be made hereafter would abide by the judgment of that Court. In Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case too the Board sought and was granted Special Leave to Appeal against the decision of this Court in R.S. A. No. 254 of 1983. It also sought Special Leave to Appeal against the dismissal of C.R. No. 407 of 1984. That apparently was ordered to be heard with the appeal against the main judgment. 17. Civil Appeals Nos.2006 to 2010 of 1980 (inclusive of Nos. 2007 and 2008 of 1980) were disposed by a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, observing as follows : "After the hearing of the appeals had gone on for some time, it transpired that all the petitioners in writ petitions before the High Court have since been promoted as Junior Engineers. The main grievance of the petitioners was as regards the fixation of quota for promotion as Junior Engineers and that question is no longer a live issue. That is the only question involved in the appeals and the question has become purely academic. It also appears that some affected persons who were junior to the petitioners but had been promoted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a-holders Line Superintendents for purposes of promotion, who were integrated into a common cadre by the State Electricity Board, was wholly arbitrary and irrational and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such being the legal position, we find no justification for the State Electricity Board expressing its doubt and difficulty as to the law applicable. The applications for directions are accordingly dismissed." 19. This completes the litigious history. Now we go over to the report in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case. We have seen from the original trial Court record in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case and as is apparent from the report also, the trial Court, lower appellate Court and the High Court proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff Ravinder Kumar Sharma was senior to defendants Nos. 3 to 7 and his claim for promotion was based just on that. Defendants Nos. 3 to 7 had not contested the suit and the only contestant was the Board. It is at the Supreme Court stage that the affected, defendants also obtained the Special Leave to Appeal against the judgments of the Courts below and with their aid the matter was highlighted in the Supreme Court. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rician/Line Man/ Wire Man from recognised Industrial Training Institute and are non-matriculates but are capable of preparing estimates, writing up measurement books accurately, keeping store account etc. and have worked for 4 years as a Lineman continuously and immediately before promotion. (iii) Persons holding diploma in Electrical Engineering of 3 to 4 years duration recruited as Lineman against the reservation of 60% fixed for recruitment of persons holding certificate of 1 1/2 years' course in the Electrical Trades of Electrician/Line Man/Wire Man from recognised Industrial Training Institutes have worked as Line Man for 3 years continuously and immediately before promotion. On promotion as Line Superintendent they will be given weightage of 2 years' service as compared to non-diploma-holders, at the time of fixation of their seniority and pay in accordance with the instruction contained in Board's Memo No.88774/84/BET/(33)L dated 29-12-1967. (d)(i) Matriculates Line Man having a total continuous service of 9 years as at A.L.M. and Line Man out of which they should have worked as Line Man for 4 years continuously and immediately before promotion.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 7 and on the basis of the eligibility criteria prescribed by means of office order dated December 22, 1968, extracted above, was eligible on the dates his juniors were promoted, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below were affirmed. Had there been any contest on those facts and the material on the file was deficient, the plaintiff's case could possibly have been remanded but instead was considered for promotion on admissions made by the parties right there, and he was thus held entitled to promotion with effect from the date of his juniors had been promoted. We have also taken care to see from the original record as to whether the question of eligibility and the criteria laid for the purpose ever came in to consideration in both the Courts below. It is significant to find that this aspect of the case was never projected before the Court below by either party. It appears to have been highlighted by defendants 3 to 7 and the Board in support of their appeals for the first time in the Supreme Court. The eligibility criteria embodied in Office Order dated December 2, 1968, laying down conditions for eligibility for Linemen seeking promotion to the posts of Line Superintend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....senior-most eligible Lineman, whether a diploma-holder or a non-diploma-holder, is entitled to be promoted to the post of Line Superintendent; (normally) and deucedly; (iv) The relevant date for consideration for promotion shall be the date on which the promotional post fell vacant. This ratio is 'declared law' under Art. 141 of the Constitution. These culled out principles of law alone are declaratory for the nation. What remains has been left for the parties. The orders of the Supreme Court are enforce- able under Article 142 of the Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure. The effective order of the Supreme Court, where-under justice was done to the parties is binding on the parties. In other words, questions as to seniority, deemed promotion etc. etc. decided in favour of Ravinder Kumar Sharma is not in the nature of a binding ratio so as to bind Courts in future to regulate the relief always on those lines. The reasoning of one decision cannot be applied in another case in the absence of similarity of situation or circumstances. It is also worthy of notice that Ravinder Kumar Sharma opted for the ordinary remedy of a suit for declaration and instituted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endents for purposes of promotion, who were integrated into a common cadre by the State Electricity Board, was wholly arbitrary and irrational and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the Board need have no doubt and difficulty as to the law applicable. Still, the Supreme Court while declaring law does not enact it as a statute or something better than a Statute. The concept of prospective or retrospective applicability, well known to Acts of Parliament and other Legislatures, does not therefore figure in it. Art. 141 of the Constitution makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all Courts within the territory of India. It goes without saying that this Court is bound to apply the law laid down in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case in the instant litigation, has has been culled out by us above, yet not always obliged to grant the asked for reliefs to the parties just because, Ravinder Kumar Sharma got what he asked for from the Supreme Court. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, which has been invoked in the instant litigation, is regulated differently and a lot of discretion enters in such field of justi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the application for revalidation was filed on 20-6-1984 in about three months from the Redemption Certificate dated 9-3-1984. 9. On a consideration of the matter we think that, apart altogether from the merits of the other grounds for rejection, the inordinate delay in preferring the claim before the authorities as also the delay in filing the petition before this Court should. by themselves. persuade us to decline to interfere." 24. On the basis of emphasised words in the aforesaid-quotation, it can safely be held that the orders dated February 10, 1988, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Kuldip Singh's case cannot, on the basis of the mere rejection of the Special Leave Petition against the said orders, by the Board, be construed as seal of approval as if a decision of the Supreme Court so as to oust our jurisdiction in hearing these matters. Article 136(1) of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything in Chapter IV, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of India. If the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho were parties to Kuldip Singh's case and the said order, in the event of Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case 1986 Lab IC 2076 (SC) being reversed, modified, explained or added to, would automatically stand reviewed accordingly. The entire conspectus of things were obviously within the contemplation of the Bench. And the order was passed in the presence of the parties' counsel. So even though the review application stands dismissed, a qualified review, on the happening of the contemplated event, has been allowed by the Bench. 26. For the foregoing reasoning, we over-rule the objection challenging our power to deal with these matters and proceed further. 27. The Board in his return contested the case as set up by Ashok Kumar Sehgal. The defence of the Board, inter alia, was that since the quota rule had been struck down by the Supreme Court, it had stopped applying it after October 22, 1986, and had issued an order to that effect on Nov., 14, 1986. It pleaded however, that between May 1970, when the quota rule was introduced and Nov. 14, 1986, when the quota rule was formally abolished, about 900 persons were promoted on the basis of their being diploma-holders in Electr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the office order No. 97 dated 22-10-1968 referred to in the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case 1986 Lab IC 2076 (SC) (supra). The only other rule relevant is Rule 9, which, inter alia, provides for the seniority of the members of the service. The Exception to it says that if a member of the service is promoted temporarily to a post earlier than his senior, for reasons other than the inefficiency of the senior person, they will take rank inter se according to their relative seniority in the class from which they were promoted and the junior person thus promoted shall not be confirmed from a date earlier than the date of confirmation of his senior except on the score of inefficiency of the latter. The proviso further says that if a member is appointed to a higher class later than a person who was junior to him in the lower class for reasons which the appointing authority may certify in writing to be connected with the public interest the person so appointed shall be given the same seniority in the higher class vis-a-vis such junior as he held in the lower class. The Exception and the proviso govern specific fields qualifiedly introducing the element of merit into seniori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e quota rule diploma-holders had gained advantage over the non-diploma holders, inasmuch as they could secure better places in queueing improving the chances of their gaining promotions quicker, it can equally not be ruled out that some of the non-diploma holders also gained a similar advantage in improving their position in the queue, as the 33 per cent. promotional quota thenceforth exclusively was left for them. The rub, however, was the existence of the common seniority list, same cadre, same assignment of duties and the same pay. And yet there was distinction in promotion to the post of Line Superintendent on the basis of educational qualifications, especially when the promotion again was to a post in a common cadre. If a promotional post in the quota of diploma-holders was available, it would go to a diploma-holder and if one was available in the quota of non-diploma holder, it would go to a non-diploma-holder. Then the question arose, why should there be two gates of entry on the basis just of educational qualifications when in the climbing of stairs one is supposed to leave the same common first floor to go to the same common second floor. The quota rule, in such circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ota of promotion between Graduate Preventive Officers and non-Graduate Preventive Officers was invalid, being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 32. The parallel strain of thought is reflected in the cases mentioned hereafter. In S. L. Sachdev v. Union of India MANU/SC/0441/1980) discrimination between Upper Division Clerks drawn from Audit Offices and others drawn from other sources in the matter of eligibility qualification for promotion, was justified on the basis that one enjoyned greater experience and that the distinction based on length of service was directly related to the object of such classification. In Roop Chand Adlakha. v. Delhi Development Authority AIR 1989 SC 30 : MANU/SC/0413/1988 : 1989 Lab IC 1268, rules prescribing different conditions of eligibility for diploma-holders and graduates for promotion from the, cadre of Junior Engineers to that of Assistant Engineers and from the cadre of Assistant Engineers to that of Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Delhi Development Authority were held not violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State was held not precluded from conferring eligibility on diploma-holders c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances go to the senior out of the two, even though the senior acquired eligibility later than the junior, or should it go to the one who acquired eligibility first. In this situation, seniority per se cannot be intended to be taken as the basis for promotion, as, otherwise, it would lead to undesirable results. If it is to be dealt otherwise, it would lead to breeding of manipulations, machinations, calculations and caprice. Designedly the case of promotion of the first eligible can deliberately be kept delayed with oblique motives so as to let suitable rivals come in and in this manner his acquired eligibility can be frustrated by someone senior acquiring eligibility far far late. Since different conditions of eligibility for promotion from Linesmen to Line Superintendent have been prescribed by the Board on the differences based on the educational qualification-cum-service experience, respectively for non-diploma holders and diploma holders, having regard to the requirements of promotional posts and in the interests of efficiency of service, the eligibility criteria is the first dominant factor and thereafter comes the principle of seniority governing the fate when two equal elig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red abolished. And then ask for the consequences like those followed in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case. The writ petitioners can at best seek relief under the declared law, which the Court may in its discretion grant or not. This would be the right position in law. 36. Mr. J. L. Gupta, learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Sehgal, vehemently urged that a law violating fundamental rights is void ab initio and it is void from the date of its making. Reliance was placed by him on Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay MANU/SC/0020/1951 : 1951 SCR 228 : (AIR 1951 SC 128) to suggest that when the law has been declared void, relief has to be given in favour of the person affected. This argument presupposes that we have to go back to discover what was the law relating to promotion prevalent at the time prior to May 14, 1970, wherefrom and thereafter was the quota rule gradually introduced. The promotional rule prior to May 14, 1970 was that in a cadre of 100 persons, 67 of posts were meant for direct recruits and the remaining 33 posts were meant for promotees. So all the Linesmen on the striking off of the quota rule would have to pass through the narrow 33 per cent door to climb to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appa Hanumantappa Jamkhandi v. The Union of India MANU/SC/0033/1954 : 1955 SCR 769 : (AIR 1955 SC 3), Mahajan, C.J. speaking for the Court, observed as follows : "...The highest Court in this land has been given original jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. It could not have been the intention that this Court would go into stale demands after a lapse of years. It is said that Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right- So it is, but it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should discard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay. We are not anxious to throw out petitions on this ground, but we must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years. It was on this ground that this Court in Jaisinghani's case observed that the order i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relief in cases of long or unreasonable delay. As noted above in Bhailal Bhai's case MANU/SC/0029/1964 : AIR 1964 SC 1006) (supra) it was observed that the "maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured". On the question of delay, we see no reason to hold that different test ought to be applied when a party comes to this Court under Art. 32 from one applicable to applications under Art. 226. There is a public policy behind all statutes of limitation and according to Halsbury's Law of England (Third Edition, Volume 24, Art. 330 at page 11 :-- "The Courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale demand and (3) that persons with good causes of action should pursue them with reasonable diligence." 40. Fourth in line is Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India 1970 SLR 339 : MANU/SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Art. 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Art. 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court." The conduct of the petitioner in that case was also commented upon by the Court to say that in effect he wants to unscramble a scrambled egg. 43. Mr, Sibal then relied upon a single Bench decision of (this Court in Ch. Amar Singh v. State of Haryana 1982) 2 SLR 337 : 1982 Lab IC 105, in which all the case law on the subject was considered and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 44. On the other hand, Mr. J.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Shankar Deodhar's case MANU/SC/0391/1973 : 1974 Lab IC 165 (SC) (supra) it is evident that the Constitution Bench was explaining the earlier Constitution Benches by observing (at p. 171 of Lab IC) : "It must be remembered that the rule which says that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claims is not rule of law but rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. Each must depend on its own facts." Even if it is a rule of practice, it is reflective of practical wisdom not to unsettle settled things which took place in the distant past. 45. A three-Member Bench of the Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue, MANU/SC/0036/1974 : AIR 1975 SC 538 : (1975 Lab IC 363), taking stock of the earlier case law, observed as follows (at p. 372 of Lab IC) : ".......But, a number of promotions having taken place between 1959 and the filing of Amrit Lal Berry's petition in 1971, those who were so promoted and had been satisfactorily discharging for considerable periods befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be implemented by the Railway Ministry, terms whereof were under examination of the Supreme Court. Adversely commenting on the scheme, it was observed that providing therein that those in respect of whom the Court granted interim relief by stay or suspension of the order of retrenchment would be treated in service on 1-1-1984 while others who failed to obtain interim relief said to be similarly situated would be pushed down in the implementation of the scheme. In these circumstances, the Court observed that this would be discriminatory as those workmen came from the lowest grade of Railway service and they could ill afford to rush to the Court. It was thus observed that those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in Court. As is obvious, this is hardly a case of delay and laches. Only the reasonableness of the scheme was being considered and the labourers who had gone to the court and others who had not, were put at par by modifying the scheme Inter Pal Yadav's case (supra) is hardly an answer to the plea of delay and laches. 48. Mr. J. L. Gupta, learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Sehgal, however, then relied upon G.P, Doy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C/0127/1968) and Ravindranath Hose's cases MANU/SC/0506/1969 : (1970 Lab IC 402) and the Full Bench of this Court in Jagjit Rai Vohra's case ) (supra). The mere existence of a Supreme(1975) Lab IC 152 Court decision in favour of a writ petitioner does not ipso facto mean that he can get the relief from a High Court. 50. The last judgment relied upon by the Hon'ble single Judge is Piare Lal v. The State of Punjab (1983) 2 S LR 786, in which D.S. Tewatia, J. (as the Ex: Chief Justice then was) took the view that declaratory judgments of the Court dealing with the legality of the statutes, rules and Governmental policies are binding not only on persons who are party thereto but on others also who may be incidentally affected by such a declaration. It was also held in that case that it is only a party which was a necessary party before the Court and had not been impleaded as such, that may feel free to legally challenge the binding nature of a given judgment of the Court if that judgment adversely affects its rights and interests. Declaratory judgments of the Supreme Court with regard to law are of course binding on all parties or no parties, as has been indicated by us ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with clarity and precision. Ashok Kumar Sehgal in his writ petition has nowhere impleaded Ramesh Kumar, the affected party, from the date of promotion of whom he wants promotion. A list of junior diploma-holders was given by him in para. 7 of the petition. The name of Ramesh Kumar does not even figure there. All what is given therein is the date of joining as Linesman, seniority number as Linesman and date of promotion to JE-11. This is an extremely unsatisfactory way to seek march over another. Significantly, he only impleaded the Board and its Chief Engineer as the only two respondents. Later some private parties of their own got impleaded as respondents but the affected Ramesh Kumar is not amongst them. He simply cannot be allowed to ask to be treated as promoted from the date his junior was promoted because in one post there can at one time be one incumbent and the something follows on such retrospective promotion as there is a consequential displacement. Thus in the absence of proper and necessary parties. Ashok Kumar Sehgal is not entitled to any relief. 53. Even the law in that regard is well settled. In Udit Narain Singh Malpharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue Bihar M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....put aside as inapplicable. That doctrine applies to a case where a superior Court, whose judicial precedents are binding on inferior Courts, chooses to depart from or overrule the law laid down earlier. In Golak Nath's case (supra) it was held that the Court who has the power to depart from or overrule its earlier decisions has the power to say that the overruling would apply prospectively so that the law settled and applied earlier thereto is not disturbed so as to keep finalised the judgments earlier rendered. Here in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (1986 Lab IC 2076) (SC) no such situation arose. There was no view to the contrary given earlier by the Court which was overruled. The rule was not even conditioned to restrict on prospective application. To be further fair to the learned counsel for the parties, it must also be acknowledged here that many judicial precedents were cited by both sides in support of their respective views on all aspects, but we have taken note of only those as find mention in this judgment and have not liked to further burden it more with judicial precedent which were by and large repetitive of the principles noticed earlier. 56. Lastly, Mr. Sib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paying salaries to employees, but to draw work out of them. Now if the judgment and order of the learned single Judge is allowed to sustain in the matter of payment of arrears of salary etc. reckoned after giving deemed promotions and fixation of pay, that would be a wrongful additional burden on the Board, not having drawn corresponding work from the writ petitioners. The neglect, delay and laches of the petitioners both are relevant to deny the relief to the writ petitioners. 57. Thus, to conclude, the judgment and. order of the learned single Judge in C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987 in Ashok Kumar Sehgal's case is set aside, for the reasons : (a) He cannot succeed only on the ground that be was senior to his juniors who were promoted as Line Superintendents; (b) He cannot succeed in his petition because it suffers from lack of particulars and vagueness, having not stated when did he acquire eligibility for promotion, when did his juniors acquire eligibility for promotion, when did the promotional post or posts fall vacant which he was deprived of and on what basis? (c) He cannot succeed for having not impleaded the parties affected thereby, if he was to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 of 1988 stands allowed for reasons recorded in L.P.A. No. 402 of 1988, but C.W.P. No. 1637 of 1979 is remitted back to the Hon'ble single Judge for redecision in accordance with the views expressed in L.P.A. No. 402 of 1988, as apparently the writ petitioner had approached this Court on 9th May, 1979 challenging the order dated 17th March, 1979 promoting the private respondents well in time. (ii) C.W.P. No. 1816 of 1987 is dismissed for the reasons given in L.P.A. No. 402 of 1988, the delay being of nearly six years in approaching this Court. (iii) C.W.P. No. 1817 of 1987 is dismissed, for the delay in approaching the Court is almost. 10 years. (iv) C.W.P. No. 1845 of 1987 is also dismissed for the delay in approaching the Court is almost 12 years. In these cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 62. Category'4 : (i) C.W.P. No. 3085 of 1988 is dismissed as infructuous because of the dismissal of C. W. P. No. 1903 of 1987, as a result of acceptance of L.P.A. No. 402 of 1988 No costs. (ii) C. W.P. No. 4138 of 1988 is dismissed in limine because of the dismissal of C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987 as a result of acceptan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. By providing different conditions of eligibility for Sectional Officers possessing Degree qualification at the time of the entry and the others acquiring degree while in service cannot by itself be said as violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In Ganga Ram v. Union of India MANU/SC/0481/1970 : 1970 S LR 755 : AIR 1970 SC 2178) the Supreme Court has ruled that the State is legitimately empowered to frame rules of classification for securing the requisite standard of efficiency in services and the classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. In applying the wide language of Arts. 14 and 16 to concrete cases a doctrinaire approach should be avoided and the matter considered in a practical way, of course, without whittling down the equality clauses. On that principle are based S.L. Sachdev's case MANU/SC/0441/1980 : (1980 Lab IC 1321) (supra), Roop Chand Adlakha's case MANU/SC/0413/1988 : (1989 Lab IC 1268) and Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (1986 Lab IC 2076) (supra). In Roop Chand Adlakha's case (supra) the State was held not precluded from conferring eligibility on diploma-holders conditioning it by other requirements which in....