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