2006 JTR(SC) 639
2006 45 AIC 551 ; 2006 AIR(SC) 2727 ; 2006 AIR(SCW) 3762 ; 2006 3 AllCJ 1749 ; 2006 64 AllLR 768 ; 2006 4 AWC 3187 ; 2006 4 CTC 268 ; 2006 6 JT 464 ; 2006 3 KLT(SN) 62 ; 2006 24 LCD 1660 ; 2006 4 RSJ 115 ; 2006 7 Scale 240 ; 2007 14 SCC 508 ; 2009 1 SCC(L&S) 852 ; 2006 Supp3 SCR 679 ; 2006 3 SCT 622 ; 2006 2 UJ 1053 ; 2006 3 UPLBEC 2273 ; 2006 KHC 1201 ; 2006 5 Supreme 655
2006(5) Supreme 655
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Prem Kumar Sharma & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3041 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20279 of 2004)
Decided on 19-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati and K.S. Bhati, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.C. Bajaj, Mrs. Sandhya Bajaj, Himanshu Bajaj and Sanjeev Malhotra Advocates.
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.14
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India apply to this case, where the validity of a High Court order directing compensatory employment to a land loser is challenged. The impugned direction was passed by a Division Bench modifying the single judges order, relying on guidelines from the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, which stipulate that land acquisition of at least three acres of non-irrigated or two acres of irrigated land is necessary for eligibility. Since the acquired land in this case was merely 0.72 decimal, the Division Benchs order is scrutinized under Article 14 principles of equality. The Court applies the doctrine that benefits conferred irregularly or illegally to certain individuals cannot be enforced by others under Article 14, as reiterated in prior precedents, to nullify the extension of relief without a legally sustainable basis.
(B) Equality under Article 14 is a positive concept and does not permit enforcement of illegal or irregular orders through collateral claims. A wrong order in favor of one party does not create a right in others to claim similar relief. Relief can only be granted where there is an enforceable right, and the doctrine against perpetuating illegalities bars courts from regularizing such orders.
Facts of the case:
A land loser filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking compensatory employment based on acquisition of 0.72 decimal of land. The High Court initially directed employment within twelve months, which was modified by the Division Bench to consider the claimants son for employment upon vacancy. The appellant challenged this modification, relying on uniform eligibility norms requiring three acres of non-irrigated or two acres of irrigated land.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench erred in modifying the original directions, as the acquired land fell far short of the prescribed threshold. Reliance on non-uniform application of norms and instances of selective appointments was insufficient to override the clear guidelines. The purported equality claim lacked an enforceable right, and extending relief on such a basis would perpetuate illegality.
Issues:
Whether a person acquiring less than the prescribed land threshold is entitled to compensatory employment; whether the High Court can modify a lawful order based on non-uniform practices; whether a claim based on equality can be entertained when the underlying order was illegal or irregular.
Ratio Decidendi:
Article 14 does not empower courts to enforce illegal or irregular orders by directing perpetuation of wrongful relief. The right to equality cannot be invoked to regularize a wrong decision where no enforceable right exists, and the specific guidelines clearly exclude the claimant from eligibility due to insufficient land acquisition.
Result:
The impugned judgment is set aside, and the appeal is allowed without costs.
(A) The Service Law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India apply to this case, where the validity of a High Court order directing compensatory employment to a land loser is challenged. The impugned direction was passed by a Division Bench modifying the single judges order, relying on guidelines from the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, which stipulate that land acquisition of at least three acres of non-irrigated or two acres of irrigated land is necessary for eligibility. Since the acquired land in this case was merely 0.72 decimal, the Division Benchs order is scrutinized under Article 14 principles of equality. The Court applies the doctrine that benefits conferred irregularly or illegally to certain individuals cannot be enforced by others under Article 14, as reiterated in prior precedents, to nullify the extension of relief without a legally sustainable basis.
(B) Equality under Article 14 is a positive concept and does not permit enforcement of illegal or irregular orders through collateral claims. A wrong order in favor of one party does not create a right in others to claim similar relief. Relief can only be granted where there is an enforceable right, and the doctrine against perpetuating illegalities bars courts from regularizing such orders.
Facts of the case:
A land loser filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking compensatory employment based on acquisition of 0.72 decimal of land. The High Court initially directed employment within twelve months, which was modified by the Division Bench to consider the claimants son for employment upon vacancy. The appellant challenged this modification, relying on uniform eligibility norms requiring three acres of non-irrigated or two acres of irrigated land.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench erred in modifying the original directions, as the acquired land fell far short of the prescribed threshold. Reliance on non-uniform application of norms and instances of selective appointments was insufficient to override the clear guidelines. The purported equality claim lacked an enforceable right, and extending relief on such a basis would perpetuate illegality.
Issues:
Whether a person acquiring less than the prescribed land threshold is entitled to compensatory employment; whether the High Court can modify a lawful order based on non-uniform practices; whether a claim based on equality can be entertained when the underlying order was illegal or irregular.
Ratio Decidendi:
Article 14 does not empower courts to enforce illegal or irregular orders by directing perpetuation of wrongful relief. The right to equality cannot be invoked to regularize a wrong decision where no enforceable right exists, and the specific guidelines clearly exclude the claimant from eligibility due to insufficient land acquisition.
Result:
The impugned judgment is set aside, and the appeal is allowed without costs.
Equality - Cited for the proposition that a wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality and two wrongs do not make a right.
Equality - Relied upon to hold that equality under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be claimed based on illegal or irregular benefits extended to others.
Equality - Relied upon for the principle that illegal allotments to others do not create a legal premise to perpetuate such illegality.
Discrimination - Relied upon to hold that Article 14 applies only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and a wrong order cannot be the basis for claiming equality.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.
2. Appellant calls in question legality of judgment rendered by a Division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench. Background facts leading to filing of the appeal are as follows :
3. Respondent No.1 – Prem Kumar Sharma filed a writ Petition before the High Court claiming appointment on the ground that he was a land loser. High Court by its order dated 8.8.2001 directed consideration by the sub-Divisional Officer. Since the sub-Divisional officer held that he was entitled to employment, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court held that since the land of the respondent No. 1 had been acquired, he was entitled for compensatory appointment. The High Court gave the following directions:
"The petitioner is directed to extend the employment to the son/defendant as the case may be of respondent no.3, within a period of twelve months from today, on availability of first vacancy with the petitioner.
In case no vacancy arises within the period, the petitioner shall create a post for the employment, in this regard."
4. Questioning correctness of the judgment, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court modified the direction to the following extent:
"On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the petitioner to consider the case of respondent No. 3 Prem Kumar Sharma for the employment to his son/dependent as the case may be whenever the vacancy arises."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entitlement to employment of a person whose land has been acquired is governed by the guidelines dated 22.12.1984. The approved recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, evolving uniform guidelines for employment to the land losers stipulated that the person concerned should have lost either 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land. Admittedly, the total land acquired in the case of respondent No.1 is .72 decimal which the respondent No. 1 originally owned along with 10 others. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief and the High Court should not have given the directions as done.
6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the norms fixed have not been uniformly followed and in several cases acquisitions were for lesser extents of land and they have been given employment. Several instances have been highlighted. The appellant has filed affidavits indicating as to how those cases were not similar.
7. The guidelines which are undisputedly applicable read as follows:
"The Government had earlier constituted a Committee to consider evolution of uniform guide-lines for providing employment to land-losers. The committee had submitted its report and the same has now been accepted by the Govt. subject to one amendment vide letter No. 55011/14/83-PIR/CP Dated 17th November, 1984. Copy enclosed. The approved uniform guideline is annexed with this letter. You are requested to kindly ensure that these guidelines are implemented in your company."
8. In the approved recommendations of the Committee constituted by Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Deptt. of Coal evolving Uniform Guidelines for employment to the land losers, it has been inter alia stated as follows:
...................
"(i)The standard norm should be one employment for 3 acres of non-irrigated land and 2 acres of irrigated land. The practice ECL should be brought at par with the practice in the other 3 Companies.
(ii)However, if the land loser being considered for employment is a matriculate or above, the norm may be reduced to 2 acres per person if he opts to join initially as an apprentice for a period of 2 years during which he may be paid a fixed stipend per month. His regulation will subsequently, be governed by the normal rules of the Company.
(iii)For the purpose of employment the Unit will be land-owner/Raiyat whose title appears in the record of rights of the particular village and will include his direct linear dependent.
(iv)The Committee deliberated on the point whether employment to land-loser should be accepted as a compulsory obligation of management of the coal Company, irrespective of the requirement of man-power. The Committee recommends that wherever possible, effort should be made to offer increased amount of compensation to the land-losers with a view to content the man-power unless the Company has the requirement of personnel in a particular category within the sanctioned strength of the manpower."
9. A bare perusal of the recommendations and the guidelines make the position clear that acquired area should be 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land. Because the acquired area is much less under the recommendation/guidelines, respondent was not entitled to any relief. The other question is as to whether the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be appointed on the ground that some others have been appointed.
10. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh & Ors. v. NDMC & Ors. [1996 (2) SCC 459] held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed:
"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others.
Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."
11. In Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. (1997 (1) SCC 35), this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding:
"Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words,judicial process cannot be abused to Perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents."
12. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann [1997 (3) SCC 321] this Court observed:
"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 similarly Circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for Reinstatement? The answer is obviously "No".
13. 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 him 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 make a right". [See: State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another [(2000) 9 SCC 94].
14. Above being the legal position, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were not justified in giving impugned directions. Their orders are accordingly set aside.
15. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
***************