REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2273  OF 2011

Chaman Lal   …Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors.  …Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  

impugned  judgment  and  decree  dated  1.12.2009  in  Regular  

Second Appeal No.2299 of 2009, passed by the High Court of  

Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, affirming the judgment and  

decree dated 16.9.2008, passed by the Additional District  

Judge, Amritsar in Civil Appeal No.122 of 14.6.2006 as well  

as the judgment and decree 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  

1

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 benefits in view of letter dated 20.4.1998  

issued  by  the  Govt.  of  Punjab  which  provided  for  

regularisation of ad hoc employees by absorbing them against  

the departmental posts.  The said suit was dismissed vide  

judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006.

C. Aggrieved,  the  appellant  preferred  Civil  Appeal  

No.122 of 2006.  It was also dismissed vide judgment and  

decree dated 16.9.2008.

D. Aggrieved,  the  appellant  preferred  the  Regular  

Second  Appeal  which  has  been  dismissed  vide  impugned  

judgment and decree.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the  

appellant  has  submitted  that  as  the  appellant  had  been  

absorbed  in  the  Fish  Farmers  Development  Agency,  he  is  

entitled to take the benefit of entire service rendered in  

various places.  Thus, the courts below committed an error  

in  refusing  the  relief  of  pension  and  other  retrial  

benefits.   The  appellant  had  been  given  a  hostile  

discrimination while a similarly situated person, namely,  

Charanjit Lal got a decree from the Civil Court, Gurdaspur  

on  16.9.1996  in  Suit  No.4  of  1992.   Thus,  the  appeal  

deserves to be allowed.

2

4. Per  contra,  Shri  Jagjit  Singh  Chhabra,  learned  

counsel  appearing  for  the  State  has  opposed  the  appeal  

contending that the Fish Farmers Development Agency is a  

society  registered  under  the  Societies  Registration  Act,  

1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1860).  If a civil  

court had granted the relief by mistake or the plaintiff  

therein  succeeded in getting a collusive decree, which is  

contrary to 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 & 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 department but rather was a society  

registered under the Act 1860.

7. The  Trial  Court  considered  the  issue  of  

entitlement of the appellant for the aforesaid relief and  

held as under:  

3

“Division  Bench  of  Hon’ble  Punjab  &  Haryana  High Court in the State of Punjab & Anr. v. Shri  D.N. Rampal, Deputy Advocate General, 1985 (1) SLR  14, where Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held  that Rule 3.12 provides three qualifications for  pension.  It says that the service of a Government  employee does not qualify for pension unless it  conforms to three conditions l(i) the service must  be under Government, (ii) the employment must be  substantive and permanent and (iii) the service  must be paid by Government.

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that in the  present case all three conditions are fulfilled so  the plaintiff is entitled to regularization of his  services  as  per  the  provisions  of  Punjab  Civil  Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.16, where the  Govt. pleader for the defendant/State argued that  the  plaintiff  cannot  claim  benefit  of  service  rendered  by  him  prior  to  1.6.1998  as  services  rendered by him in Fish Farmer Development Agency  from 20.5.1980 to 31.5.1998 was rendered by him in  a society registered under the societies Act and  regarding  this  fact  a  categorical  findings  has  been recorded by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana  High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1501 of 2001  between the parties and the copy of order is Ex.D3  perusal of the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana  High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1501 titled  ‘Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab & 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 is a registered society under the  societies Registration Act, 1860.  It is  an autonomous body.  It is not a part of  the  department  of  Fisheries  Punjab.   In  fact,  the  petitioner  was  appointed  as  a  driver in the Department of Fisheries by  the Director and warden only on 22.5.1998.  In view of the above, no relief can  be  granted to the petitioner.’

4

So  when  the  Hon’ble  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court has recorded categorical findings that the  services  rendered  by  the  plaintiff  prior  to  22.5.1998  was  rendered  by  him  in  a  society  registered under the Societies Registration Act,  then the plaintiff cannot be held to be in service  under  the  Govt.  prior   to  22.5.1998,  so  his  service  rendered  prior  to  that  date  cannot  be  considered  for  the  purpose  of  calculation  of  pension.  So all these issues are decided against  the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.”

8. The  First  Appellate  Court  re-appreciated  the  

entire evidence, on the issue. After making reference to the  

judgment  of  the  High  Court  rendered  in  the  case  of  the  

appellant, the court held:

“When  there  is  adjudication  between  the  parties qua this fact and the Hon'ble High Court  vide  order,  referred  to  above,  has  given  the  verdict that the plaintiff rendered the services  towards  the  Fish  Farmers  Development  Agency,  Amritsar,  as  a  truck  driver  which  is  non- pensionable post and the agency is a registered  society  under  the  Societies  Registration  Act,  1860,  it  is  an  autonomous  body.  Their  Lordship  further observed that the service of the 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  prayer  to  direct  the  department  to  release  the  

5

additional increment in the form of proficiency  step  up  after  8,  16,  24  and  32  years  of  the  service but the same writ petition was dismissed  according to the plaintiff.”

10. In fact, 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.

11. Coming  to  the  next  submission  advanced  by  Shri  

Garg  regarding  the  discrimination  as  a  similar  relief  

claimed  by  the  appellant  has  been  granted  to  similarly  

situated person, namely, Charanjit Lal by a Civil Court and  

the said judgment and decree attained finality and had not  

been challenged.   

Shri Garg has taken us through the said judgment  

and  decree.   We  are  shocked  that  in  the  said  suit  the  

plaintiff therein, for the reasons best known to him, did  

not implead the State of Punjab as a defendant.  The suit  

had been filed only against the Fish Farmers Development  

Agency, Gurdaspur and the Chief Executive Officer of the  

said Agency.  No one else was added as a party.  Relief of  

pension was sought against the State of Punjab, which was  

not even impleaded as a party in the suit.  In fact, no  

relief was sought against the defendants therein.  Thus, the  

State was not bound by such a judgment and decree. (Vide:  

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of  

Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 786).

6

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 & Ors.  

v. Bagathi Krishna Rao & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2617, wherein  

after placing reliance on earlier judgments of this Court  

particularly,   Ranjeet  Mal  v.  General  Manager,  Northern  

Railway,  New  Delhi  &  Anr.,  AIR  1977  SC  1701;  and  Chief  

Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector & Ors.,  

AIR 2003 SC 1805, this Court held that if the relief is  

sought against the State, it is necessary for the plaintiff  

to implead the State and in absence thereof the suit itself  

would not be maintainable.   

13. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the  

suit was wrongly decreed.  It is also intriguing to note  

from the said judgment that the defendant appeared and filed  

the  written  statement  and  admitted the  claim  of  the  

plaintiff therein.  Therefore, the judgment is not worth  

putting any reliance on it.  The finding of fact had been  

recorded therein that :    

“Karam  Singh,  DW.1  admitted during  cross- examination  that  Punjab  Govt.  gives  funds  to  

7

defendant  no.1  agency,  admitted that  defendant  no.1  agency  is  being  run  by  Punjab  Government  admitted that employees in the agency are sent by  Punjab Government and  admitted that employees of  Punjab Government are appointed for service in the  agency and he admitted that he himself is also  Government employee.”

(Emphasis added)

So  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.  We  are  

equally amazed to find that State of Punjab implemented the  

judgment. It leaves much to be desired.

 14. Thus, in view of the fact that the judgment and  

decree in the case of Charanjit Lal seems to be collusive  

and in a suit which itself was not maintainable, 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 & 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  some  other  similarly  situated persons have been granted some relief/  benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order  does not confer any legal right on others to get  the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed  in  an  earlier  case,  it  cannot  be  perpetuated.  

8

Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in  illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a  citizen  or  court  in  a  negative  manner.  If  an  illegality and irregularity has been committed in  favour of an individual or a group of individuals  or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial  forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of  the  higher  or  superior  court  for  repeating  or  multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or  for  passing  a  similarly  wrong  order.  A  wrong  order/decision in favour of any particular party  does not entitle any other party to claim benefits  on  the  basis  of  the  wrong  decision.  Even  otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far  for  otherwise  it  would  make  functioning  of  administration  impossible.  (Vide:  Chandigarh  Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR  1995 SC 705,  M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of  Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565;  K.K. Bhalla v.  State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Fuljit  Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1937).”

16. In view of the above, we do not find any of the  

arguments advanced by Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel for  

the appellant worth acceptance.

The  appeal  is  devoid  of  any  merit  and  is  

accordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs.

     ....................J.              (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

          ....................J.                                    (A.K. SIKRI)

New Delhi,  May 16, 2014.

9

ITEM NO.1B               Court No.2             SECTION IV

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                     CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2273 OF 2011

CHAMAN LAL                                        Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                            Respondent(s)

Date: 16/05/2014  This Appeal was called on for pronouncement of      judgment today.

For Appellant(s)                     Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg,Adv.

For Respondent(s)                      Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv.

Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan pronounced  the  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  of  His  Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.

The appeal is devoid of any merit and is  accordingly  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable judgment.  No order as to costs.

  (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (M.S. NEGI)   Court Master  Assistant Registrar

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

10