1997 JTR(SC) 321
1997 AIR(SCW) 1574 ; 1997 1 AllCJ 656 ; 1997 1 CLR 829 ; 1997 76 FLR 746 ; 1997 3 JT 450 ; 1997 2 KLT(SN) 16 ; 1997 LIC 1541 ; 1997 2 LLJ 1039 ; 1997 2 LLN 616 ; 1997 2 RSJ 520 ; 1997 2 Scale 541 ; 1997 3 SCC 321 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 801 ; 1997 2 SCR 329 ; 1997 3 SCT 135 ; 1997 2 SLR 391 ; 1997 1 UJ 776 ; 1997 2 UPLBEC 963 ; 1997 KHC 509 ; 1997 3 Supreme 110
1997(3) Supreme 110
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
The State of Haryana & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Ram Kumar Mann -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1985
Decided on 20-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Jasbir Malik, Adv. for Prem Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Urmila Sirur, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16, Art.32, Art.14
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions including Article 14, read alongside the principles of service law, govern the validity of administrative action concerning an employee's right to withdraw resignation and claim reinstatement. The analysis must determine whether the denial of withdrawal to the respondent, after it had been permitted to similarly situated officers, constitutes an invidious breach of equality before law, or whether the prior erroneous permission to others does not ripen into an enforceable right for the respondent given the definitive cessation of service relationship upon acceptance of resignation under Article 16 and Service Law principles.
(B) Key legal principles include: equality under Article 14 is attracted only where there is invidious discrimination against equals without a rational basis; a voluntary resignation, once validly accepted, terminates the employer-employee relationship and does not create a right to reversal; the doctrine of discrimination requires an enforceable right to be denied; and allowing reinstatement based on a wrong initial decision creates two wrongs which cannot establish a right to parity.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, serving as a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, submitted a resignation on April 23, 1982 to contest State Legislative Assembly elections. The resignation was accepted on May 18, 1982, after which the respondent contested and lost the election. On May 21, 1982, the respondent sought to withdraw the resignation, which was dismissed. The High Court noted that three other similarly situated persons were permitted to withdraw resignations and reinstated, directing reinstatement with benefits, raising a question of law under Article 14.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that once the resignation was accepted, the service relationship ceased, and the respondent had no legal right to withdraw it or claim reinstatement. Granting permission to others did not create an enforceable right for the respondent, and treating the earlier administrative discretion as a basis for equality constituted an error, as there was no invidious discrimination when the initial withdrawal was rightly denied.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was correct in directing reinstatement under Article 14 on the ground of discrimination, when the respondent had no enforceable right to withdraw a validly accepted resignation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The right to equality under Article 14 arises only when like circumstances are treated differently without a rational basis. A voluntary resignation validly accepted terminates all rights in service, and an employee has no claim to reinstatement merely because others were permitted an administrative facility; a wrong in the past does not ripen into a right, and two wrongs do not make a right.
Result:
The appeal is allowed without costs, setting aside the High Court order and denying reinstatement or any consequential benefits.
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions including Article 14, read alongside the principles of service law, govern the validity of administrative action concerning an employee's right to withdraw resignation and claim reinstatement. The analysis must determine whether the denial of withdrawal to the respondent, after it had been permitted to similarly situated officers, constitutes an invidious breach of equality before law, or whether the prior erroneous permission to others does not ripen into an enforceable right for the respondent given the definitive cessation of service relationship upon acceptance of resignation under Article 16 and Service Law principles.
(B) Key legal principles include: equality under Article 14 is attracted only where there is invidious discrimination against equals without a rational basis; a voluntary resignation, once validly accepted, terminates the employer-employee relationship and does not create a right to reversal; the doctrine of discrimination requires an enforceable right to be denied; and allowing reinstatement based on a wrong initial decision creates two wrongs which cannot establish a right to parity.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, serving as a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, submitted a resignation on April 23, 1982 to contest State Legislative Assembly elections. The resignation was accepted on May 18, 1982, after which the respondent contested and lost the election. On May 21, 1982, the respondent sought to withdraw the resignation, which was dismissed. The High Court noted that three other similarly situated persons were permitted to withdraw resignations and reinstated, directing reinstatement with benefits, raising a question of law under Article 14.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that once the resignation was accepted, the service relationship ceased, and the respondent had no legal right to withdraw it or claim reinstatement. Granting permission to others did not create an enforceable right for the respondent, and treating the earlier administrative discretion as a basis for equality constituted an error, as there was no invidious discrimination when the initial withdrawal was rightly denied.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was correct in directing reinstatement under Article 14 on the ground of discrimination, when the respondent had no enforceable right to withdraw a validly accepted resignation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The right to equality under Article 14 arises only when like circumstances are treated differently without a rational basis. A voluntary resignation validly accepted terminates all rights in service, and an employee has no claim to reinstatement merely because others were permitted an administrative facility; a wrong in the past does not ripen into a right, and two wrongs do not make a right.
Result:
The appeal is allowed without costs, setting aside the High Court order and denying reinstatement or any consequential benefits.
ORDER
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on 10.8.1984 in CWP No. 1154/84.
2. The admitted facts are that the respondent, while working as a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, had tendered his resignation on April 23, 1982 to contest the election as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. His resignation was accepted on May 18, 1982. He contested the election but was defeated. Thereafter, he filed an application on May 21, 1982 withdrawing his resignation. That was dismissed. Consequently, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. The High Court observed that since three similarly situated persons, viz., Gurbajan Singh, Daryao Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi were allowed to withdraw their resignations were appointed in the respective posts held by them, the failure to extend similar benefit to the respondent would be violative of Article 14. Therefore, it directed the appellant to reinstate him into service with consequential benefits.
3. The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law ? It is seen that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service and the resignation was accepted by the Government on May 18, 1982. On and from that date, the relationship of employer and the employee between the respondent and the State ceased and thereafter he had no right, whatsoever, either to claim the post or a right to withdraw his resignation which had already became effective by acceptance on May 18, 1982. It may be that the Government for their own reasons, given permission in similar case, to some of the employees mentioned earlier, to withdraw their resignations and had appointed them. The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing mis-appropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similar circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? Answer is obviously No . In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle lion to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never made a right. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, 1997(3) Supreme 110 : JT 1997(3) SC 450
00024