ANIL JOSHI Vs STATE OF H.P..
Bench: FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-006097-006100 / 2009
Diary number: 33601 / 2007
Advocates: HIMINDER LAL Vs
NARESH K. SHARMA
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6097-6100 OF 2009
Anil Joshi and Others Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Respondent(s)
With
CIVIL APPEAL No.6101 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL No.6102 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL No.6103 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL No.6104 OF 2009
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1
Page 2
1. Civil Appeal Nos. 6101, 6102, 6103 and 6104 of
2009 are filed by the State against the common
judgment dated 15.06.2007 passed by the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition
Nos. 586 of 1999, 66, 118 and 170 of 2000 wherein
the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the
State employees working in the Forest Department
by setting aside the judgment/order dated
15.12.1999 passed by the Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in O.A. Nos. 35 of
1989, 595, 609 and 620 of 1990.
2. So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 6097-6100 of 2009
are concerned, these appeals are filed by one set of
employees after obtaining leave of this Court
because they were not parties before the High Court
or before the Tribunal. According to them,
consequent upon the declaration given by the High
Court in favour of the respondents in their absence,
they felt aggrieved and hence filed these appeals.
2
Page 3
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in
these appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, it is
necessary to state the relevant facts infra.
4. The respondents herein are the State
employees working in the Forest Department in
Himachal Pradesh. They were appointed during
1989-1990 and accordingly posted as "Range
Officers" in the Forest Department. Their service
conditions are governed by the Recruitment &
Promotion Rules for the Himachal Pradesh Forest
Service (Class-II) (in short “the Rules”).
5. The respondents, however, claimed that they
having qualified the State Forest Service Course
(Diploma Course) from different colleges were
eligible to be posted as ACF (Assistant Conservator of
Forest) and accordingly were eligible for being
treated as "direct recruits" in the H.P. Forest Services
Class II.
3
Page 4
6. The respondents claimed the aforementioned
reliefs essentially on the basis of one letter dated
28.07.1983 sent by the Director of Forest Education,
Forest Research Institute & College to the Secretary,
Forest Department, States/U.Ts. According to the
respondents, the letter was in the nature of the
promise given to them by the State and since the
State declined to grant the reliefs, they filed O.As
before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for
short “the Tribunal”) against the State and sought for
the following reliefs:
(i) That the respondents may be directed to appoint petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as HPFS-II from the date they completed the SFS Training Course from SFS College Dehradum, i.e. April 1, 1986, the day following the convocation.
(ii) That the respondents may be directed to appoint petitioner No.3 as H.P.F.S.-II from the date of his joining the SFS Training Course at SFS College Burnihat, i.e., 1.11.1986.
(iii) That the petitioners may be declared to have been duly selected for SFS Diploma against direct quota
4
Page 5
under the existing R & P Rules and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioners from the due dates as has been done in the cases of their contemporary direct recruits.
(iv) That the petitioners may be held entitled to all consequential benefits including fixation of seniority and back wages; and
(v) That in the alternative if it is construed that there are some impediments for considering the petitioners for appointments to HPFS-II from due dates, in that event, the respondents may be directed to take necessary steps for doing the needful and if the proposed action/rules create certain difficulties in the cases of petitioners, the same may be deemed to have been relaxed in view of peculiar facts of this case.”
7. The State contested the respondents’ claim and
contended that no promise was ever given to the
respondents and nor any promise was discernible
from the letter dated 28.07.1983 relied on by the
respondents so as to entitle them to claim the
aforementioned reliefs. It was also contended that
since the Rules do not make any provision on the
5
Page 6
issue in question and hence it is not possible to
consider grant of such relief to the respondents.
Lastly, it was contended that as and when any
amendment in the Rules is made, the cases of the
respondents and others alike them would be
considered on their merits at the appropriate stage.
8. The Tribunal, by judgment/order dated
15.12.1999 dismissed the O.As filed by the
respondents. It was held that the letter dated
28.07.1983 does not give any right to the
respondents to claim such reliefs. It was also held
that no case of promissory estoppel, as was sought to
be pressed in service by the respondents, was made
out in their favour on the strength of the letter dated
28.07.1983. It was also held that the cases of
respondents are governed by the Rules and so long
as they do not fulfill the requirements of the Rules,
no benefit can be extended to them.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment/order, the
6
Page 7
respondents filed writ petitions under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India in the High Court. By
impugned judgment/order, the Division Bench
allowed the respondents’ writ petitions and quashed
the order of the Tribunal. It was held that a case of
promissory estoppel as pleaded by the respondents
is made out against the State. It was held that if the
State has failed to amend the Rules, no blame can be
attributed to the respondents for such lapse on the
part of the State and nor can they be deprived of
their legitimate rights to claim the reliefs for which
they filed O.As before the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the High Court gave the following
declaration in favour of the respondents:
“We consequently allow the writ petitions, set-aside the orders of the learned Tribunal dated 15th December 1999 and hold that the petitioners are entitled to be inducted in the H.P. State Forest Service-II with effect from the date they successfully completed the State Forest Service Course (Diploma Course) in Forestry with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.”
7
Page 8
11. It is against this order, the State filed C.A.Nos.
6101, 6102, 6103 and 6104 of 2009 and the affected
State employees, who were not parties before the
High Court or the Tribunal filed C.A. Nos. 6097-6100
of 2009.
12. The question which arises for consideration in
these appeals is whether the High Court was justified
in allowing the writ petitions by granting declaration
in favour of the respondent-employees.
13. Learned Counsel for the appellant-State while
assailing the legality and correctness of the
impugned order made two-fold submissions. In the
first place, learned counsel contended that the High
Court erred in holding that a case of promissory
estoppel was made out in favour of the respondents.
According to him, neither any promise was given by
the State and nor it could be spelt out from the
contents of the letter dated 28.07.1983. Learned
counsel contended that apart from the letter dated
8
Page 9
28.07.1983, the respondents did not place reliance
on any evidence to support their plea of promissory
estoppel. Learned counsel further contended that
the plea of promissory estoppel was not applicable to
the case in hand for the simple reason that service
conditions of the respondents are governed by the
Service Rules. In the second place, learned counsel
contended that the matter is under consideration for
making appropriate amendment in the R & P Rules of
HPFS-II and hence so long as appropriate amendment
is not made, the respondents are not entitled to
claim reliefs.
14. In contra, the respondents supported the
impugned order and contended that no case is made
out to interfere in the impugned order and hence the
appeals are liable to be dismissed.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find
force in the submission of the learned counsel for the
9
Page 10
appellant-State.
16. As mentioned above, the High Court allowed the
respondents’ writ petitions essentially on the ground
that a case of promissory estoppel was made out
against the State and hence the State is bound by
the promise made to the respondents for grant of
reliefs in question.
17. We cannot concur with the view taken by the
High Court, as in our considered opinion, it is not
sustainable both on facts and in law.
18. It is a settled principle of law that the service
conditions of a State employee are governed by the
Statutory Rules framed by the State from time to
time. An employee is, therefore, entitled to enforce
his statutory right recognized in the Rules in relation
to his service condition if it is breached due to any
action on the part of the State. A plea of promissory
estoppel can be set up by a person against the State
only when he is able to prove with adequate
10
Page 11
evidence that the State has promised him in writing
in express terms to grant specific benefit and acting
upon such promise he has altered his position. In
such situation, the State cannot be allowed to go
back to the promise made to such person and he can
enforce the promise made to him.
19. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, we find
that firstly the terms and conditions of the service of
the respondents are governed by the Recruitment &
Promotion Rules known as R & P Rules of HPFS-II.
Secondly, Column 7 of the Schedule to the Rules
provides for educational and other qualifications
required for direct recruits, whereas Column 10 of the
Schedule to the Rules provides for method of
recruitment whether by direct or by promotion or
transfer. Likewise, Column 11 of the Schedule to the
Rules provides for the necessary qualification for
promotion etc. Thirdly, the respondents were not
able to show any Rule, which enabled them to claim
11
Page 12
a relief of the nature for which the O.As were filed.
Fourthly, perusal of the letter dated 28.07.1983
would go to show that it only provided that the Forest
Rangers, who passed the Ranger Course with
Honours, were considered eligible to secure
admission to the 2nd year of the State Forest Services
Course (Diploma Course) in Forestry being conducted
at the State Forest Service Colleges and such
deserving Forest Rangers if found suitable, could be
considered for admission in the State Forest Services
Course.
20. For ready reference, letter dated 28.07.1983 is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“No. 1410/83-DEF/5-2-62(PT.III) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE & COLLEGES,
P.O. NEW FOREST, DEHRADUN-248 006 DATED THE 28TH JULY, 1983.
From The Director of Forest Education Forest Research Institute & College.
To The Secretary, Forest Departments, States/U.Ts.
12
Page 13
Sub: Selection for Diploma Course in Forestry at the State Forest Service Colleges located at Burmihat, Coimbatore and Dehradun.
Sir, I have the honour to state that
in view of the decision taken by the Council of Forestry Research and Education in one of its meeting held at Delhi on 5.5.1983, the Government of India have been pleased to convey their approval to the fact that those trained Forest Rangers who have/had passed the Rangers Course with honours are eligible for admission to the 2nd year of the State Forest Service Course (Diploma Course) in Forestry being conducted at the State Forest Service Colleges located at Bumihat (Assam-Meghalaya), Coimbatore(Tamil Nadu) and Dehradun. It is requested that the matter may kindly be given wide publicity and the cases of deserving trained Forest Rangers may be considered and recommended accordingly for admission in the State Forest Service Course.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (C.S. Kirpekar)
Director of Forest Education
Forest Research Institute & Colleges.
Copy forwarded to the Chief Conservator of Forests, ………for favour of information and similar action.
Sd/- (C.S. Kirpekar)
13
Page 14
Director of Forest Education
Forest Research Institute & Colleges.”
The contents of the letter quoted above, in our
opinion, could not be construed as being in the
nature of promise made by the State to the
respondents, so as to enable them to seek its
enforcement on the plea of promissory estoppel. The
letter, in our view, only prescribed additional
qualification enabling the Forest Rangers to seek
admission in the State Forest Service Course
provided they also fulfill necessary qualifications
prescribed in Column 11 of the Schedule to the Rules.
21. In our considered opinion, the High Court,
therefore, committed an error in placing reliance on
the judgments of this Court rendered in Collector of
Bombay vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of
Bombay & Ors., AIR 1951 SC 469, Union of India
& Ors. Vs. M/s Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. AIR
1968 SC 718, M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills
14
Page 15
Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
AIR 1979 SC 621, Surya Narain Yadav & Ors. Vs.
Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC
38 and State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd. &
Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 465, which dealt with the cases of
promissory estoppel. The High Court failed to see
the distinction between the facts of the case in hand
and the facts which were subject matter of the cases
relied on. The case in hand being a service matter,
the rights of the parties were required to be decided
in the light of the statutory service Rules applicable
to the parties. So far as the decisions relied on by
the High Court were concerned, those were the cases
where this Court laid down the law relating to the
promissory estoppel operating in general field inter
se citizen and the State. None of these decisions
dealt with the cases arising out of service law. The
principle of promissory estoppel laid down therein,
therefore, could not be applied to the case in hand
15
Page 16
for giving benefit to the respondents.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to
certain letters, contended that a case of promissory
estoppel was made out against the State entitling the
respondents to claim the reliefs. We find no force in
this submission.
23. We have perused the contents of the letters
referred to in the impugned order and find that
firstly, the letters were exchanged between one State
Authority to other and not addressed to the
respondents and secondly, no enforceable right of
the nature in question was created in respondents’
favour on the strength of these letters.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents then urged
that appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 6097-6100 of
2009 have no locus to file the appeal as none of their
service rights were adversely affected. This
submission need not to be gone into on its merits in
this appeal in the light of the decision rendered in
16
Page 17
C.A. Nos. 6101, 6102, 6103 and 6104 of 2009-
appeals filed by the State against the impugned
judgment/order.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents, lastly,
brought to our notice that pending appeals, the
respondents were given some benefits independent
to the impugned judgment/order. If that be so, then
we prefer to express no opinion on any such issue
because it was not gone into at any stage of the
proceedings. We, however, make it clear that we only
examined the issue which was decided by the
Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, this order
would not come in the way of the parties if, in the
meantime, they or anyone received any benefit
independent of the controversy involved in this case.
Needless to say, so far as this case is concerned, the
cases of the respondents can always be considered
for their promotion etc. in the light of existing Rules if
they fulfill the qualifications laid down or as per any
17
Page 18
amended Rules, if made.
26. In the light of foregoing discussion, we cannot
uphold the judgment/order passed by the High Court
which deserves to be set aside.
27. The appeals thus succeed and are hereby
allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated
15.06.2007 passed by the High Court in the writ
petitions is set aside. The writ petitions filed by the
respondents stand dismissed resulting in restoration
of the order passed by the Tribunal, which rightly
dismissed the O.As filed by the respondents.
28. In the light of the decision in C.A. Nos. 6101,
6102, 6103 and 6104 of 2009, C.A. Nos. 6097-6100
of 2009 are disposed of.
…………….…. ……...................................J.
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
18
Page 19
………….…. ……...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi; March 9, 2015.
19