9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1207 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of retirement benefits - non-government servant - seeking relief of proficiency set up - HELD THAT - There has been adjudication on the same issue between the same parties and the High Court negatived Appellant's claim. We are of the considered opinion that the Appellant does not deserve any relief whatsoever and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is difficult 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. The suit was wrongly decreed - here is a suit which was decreed on the admission of the Defendant against whom no relief was prayed for, and without impleading the necessary party - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to retiral benefits for service rendered in the Fish Farmers Development Agency. 2. Applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding equality in granting benefits. 3. Validity of a judgment obtained by a similarly situated person (Charanjit Lal) and its impact on the appellant's case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Retiral Benefits for Service Rendered in the Fish Farmers Development Agency: The appellant worked in the Army as a truck driver from 1962 to 1968 and was subsequently employed as a truck driver in the Fish Farmers Development Agency from 1980 to 1998. After being declared surplus, he was absorbed in the Animal Husbandry, Fisheries, and Dairy Development, Punjab, and retired in 2002. The appellant filed a civil suit claiming retiral benefits based on a letter from the Government of Punjab that provided for the regularization of ad hoc employees. The trial court dismissed the suit, and subsequent appeals were also dismissed. The courts consistently held that the Fish Farmers Development Agency is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and not a government agency. Therefore, the service rendered in the agency could not be counted for pensionary benefits as it did not meet the qualifications under Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, which requires the service to be under the government, substantive and permanent, and paid by the government. 2. Applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution Regarding Equality in Granting Benefits: The appellant argued that he faced hostile discrimination as a similarly situated person, Charanjit Lal, received a decree granting him benefits. The respondent countered that the Fish Farmers Development Agency is an autonomous body and not a government department. The courts held that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality. Even if a civil court granted relief by mistake or through a collusive decree, it cannot be extended to others. The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and does not allow the perpetuation of illegality or fraud. The courts cited precedents, including Basawaraj and Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, to support this view. 3. Validity of a Judgment Obtained by a Similarly Situated Person (Charanjit Lal) and Its Impact on the Appellant's Case: The appellant cited a judgment in favor of Charanjit Lal, who obtained a decree for similar benefits. However, the court found that the State of Punjab was not impleaded as a defendant in Charanjit Lal's suit, making the judgment not binding on the state. The court emphasized that a suit seeking relief against the state must implead the state as a party, as per Section 79 and Order 1 Rules 9 & 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Article 300 of the Constitution of India. The judgment in Charanjit Lal's case was deemed collusive and not maintainable, as it was decreed on the defendant's admission without the necessary party being impleaded. The courts held that such a judgment could not be relied upon to grant similar relief to the appellant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to retiral benefits for the service rendered in the Fish Farmers Development Agency, as it was not a government agency. The court also rejected the argument of discrimination under Article 14, stating that the provision does not perpetuate illegality. The judgment obtained by Charanjit Lal was found to be collusive and not binding on the state, and thus could not be used to claim similar benefits for the appellant. The appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
