TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 23.5.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Amritsar in Civil Suit No. 275 of 2004, wherein and whereunder the courts have dismissed the suit of the Appellant for grant of retiral benefits for not being Government servant. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. That the Appellant had worked in the Army as Truck driver from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968. He was subsequently employed as a truck driver in the Fish Farmers Development Agency from 16.7.1980 to 20.5.1998. After being declared surplus, he was absorbed in the Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development, Punjab on 1.6.1998 and stood superannuated on 31.3.2002. B. The Appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 275 of 2004 claiming retrial be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o law, its benefit cannot be extended to other similarly situated persons for the reason that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Before we proceed further, it may be pertinent to mention here that Appellant after retirement had approached the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2004 (Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.) seeking relief of proficiency set up, against the State wherein the High Court refused the relief by recording a finding that the Fish Farmers Development Agency, Amritsar was neither a Government agency nor a depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1501 titled 'Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors. shows that in that case also the question involved was that whether services rendered by the Plaintiff in Fish Farm Development Agency, Amritsar can be considered for the purpose of proficiency step up to the Plaintiff and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court recorded a findings that the same cannot be considered for proficiency step up. The relevant portion of the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is reproduced as under: It has been stated in the preliminary objection that the Petitioner was appointed in the office of Fish Farm Development Agency, Amritsar, as a Truck Driver on a non-pensionable post. The Agency ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Plaintiff with the Fish Farmers Development Agency is not a department of Fisheries, Punjab and now the Petitioner/Appellant is appointed as driver with the Fisheries Department by the Director only on 28.5.1998. In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed. 9. The High Court while dealing with the issue held as under: Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that since Fish Farmers Development Agency is an autonomous Board and is controlled by Co-operative Society and as such the services rendered by the Plaintiff with the said Society cannot be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits. That concurrent finding of fact could not be assailed. The Petitioner has filed CWP No. 1501 of 2001 under Article 226/227 with a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....86). 12. We fail to understand how the suit was maintainable as it is a settled legal proposition that in view of the provisions of Section 79 and Order 1 Rules 9 & 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 300 of the Constitution of India, if a relief is sought against the State or the Union of India, the State or Union of India must be impleaded as a party. In case it is not so impleaded, the suit is not maintainable for want of necessary party. This view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in The District Collector, Srikakulam and Ors. v. Bagathi Krishna Rao and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2617, wherein after placing reliance on earlier judgments of this Court particularly, Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, New....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le, we are unable to accept the submission advanced by Shri Garg, learned Counsel for the Appellant. 15. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj and Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 considered this issue and held as under: It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if....