Case: R. MUTHUKUMAR &amp; ORS Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TANGEDCO &amp; ORS

service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence. Before discussing the ratio of the judgment, it would be useful to extract the factual context from which the dispute arose: 9. The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. Whereas the Appellants contend that the Respondents herein did not approach the Court in time and were fence-sitters and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the said judgment by approaching the judicial forum belatedly. They also plead some distinguishing features on the basis of which it is contended that the case of the Respondents herein is not at par with the matter which was dealt with by the Tribunal in which order dated June 22, 1987 were passed giving benefit to those candidates who had approached the Court at that time. 23. It is thus, evident that in Aravind Kumar Srivastava (supra) the previous orders of the tribunal and the court were based on merits adjudication, and not based on concession; certainly not based on compromise. It was in the background of such facts that denial of relief to similarly situated claims, was held to be unjustified. Most importantly, for the purpose of this case, the court carved out an exception: that subsequent litigants, wishing to benefit from orders made in others cases, had to approach the courts in time, without delay or laches. In the facts of this case, there is no question of any finality to the compromise order: it cannot be treated, by any stretch of the imagination, as an order in rem, or as a binding precedent. Also, the aggrieved appellants, and the contesting candidates (in TANGEDCOs appeal) did not approach the court in time. They woke up after the compromise order, claiming parity, and filed petitions in the court. Clearly, therefore, they cannot claim any benefit from the compromise order. 24. A principle, axiomatic in this countrys constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, this court ruled that: 8. 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. Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle (Ref: Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745, Anand Buttons Ltd. v State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581 ; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455, and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab (2014) 15 SCC 715) . Recently, in The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati 2019 SCC Online SC 1207 this court observed as follows: 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]20. A feature that stares at the face of the record before this court, is that the Division Bench, in its compromise order, proceeded to accept the terms proposed by the parties. The court did not examine - at least its order does not disclose any such consideration - the merits of the case, and why such proposal was justified in the facts of the case. It is one thing for a public employer, to concede in the course of proceedings, to an argument, which it had hitherto clung to, but was untenable. Fairness demands that public bodies, as model employers, do not pursue untenable submissions. In such cases, a concession, which is based on law, and accords to a just interpretation of the concerned law and/or rules, is sustainable. However, it is altogether another thing for a public employer, whose conduct is questioned, and who has succeeded on the merits of the case before the lower forum (in this case, the single judge) to voluntarily agree, in an unreasoned manner, to a compromise. The harm and deleterious effect of such conduct is to prioritize the claim of those before the court, when it is apparent that a large body of others, waiting with a similar grievance (and some of whom probably have a better or legitimate claim on merits to be appointed) are not parties to the proceedings. In such cases, a compromise is not only unjustified, it is contrary to law and public interest.21. This court, many years ago, in C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore 1965 (1) SCR 360 faced a somewhat analogous situation. In that case, the state government had appointed sixteen persons pursuant to a compromise, which invited a charge of unfairness by it, from others who did not secure such a benefit. The court held that:1. By a notification dated September 26, 1959, the Mysore Public Service Commission announced that a competitive examination would be held for direct recruitment for Class I and Class II posts relating to certain Administrative Services and numerous applicants including the petitioners themselves as candidates. On September 5, 1960, the Public Service Commission modified the earlier notification and instead of holding an examination announced that the selection would be made solely on the results of a viva voce test. The petitioners characterised this change as opposed to the Mysore Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1957 but during the hearing of these petitions this ground of attack was abandoned perhaps in view of what happened later.2. The Public Service Commission duly held the viva voce interviews and on July 29, 1961 they published a list of ninety-eight candidates who they announced were selected. After the announcement of the results the State Government sent for the consideration of the Commission a list of twenty-four candidates and as the Commission approved of them they were also appointed on March 7, 1962. In giving their concurrence the Commission purported to take power from a foot-note added to sub-rule (3) of r. 4 of the Mysore Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1957. Sixteen candidates, who were not selected, filed petitions under Articles 14, 15 and16 of the Constitution in the High Court of Mysore. On November 26, 1962 there was a compromise and the Government undertook to appoint the petitioners before the High Court. Of these thirteen had attended the viva voce test but three had not been called for it. In this way there were three sets of appointments: the first of ninety-eight candidates, the second of twenty-four candidates and the third of sixteen candidates. There were in all 1,777 applicants who were called for the viva voce test. A very large number of the applicants was not called for the test and the High Court of Mysore in the petition of the three petitioners who had not been called for the viva voce test directed the Commission to call them and the Commission then called 203 candidates who were in the same category as the three petitioners in the High Court. It may be pointed out that at the first viva voce test eighty-eight candidates and at the second test ten candidates were selected, thus making the total number ninety-eight.3. Encouraged by what had happened to those who had petitioned to the High Court, the other candidates who had not succeeded applied for writs under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Their petitions were summarily dismissed by the High Court.********* ********* ******9. Taking the case of the sixteen candidates first, it appears to us, that since most of these candidates had obtained fewer marks than some of the rejected candidates it is impossible to sustain their selection. To begin with it was wrong of the High Court to allow a compromise of this kind to be effected when it was patently obvious that three candidates had not attended the viva voce test at all and there was nothing before the High Court for comparing the remaining thirteen candidates with those who had failed in the selection. There were allegations of nepotism which had not been abandoned and find now that most of these candidates do not rank as high as some of the rejected candidates. In such a case the court should be slow to accept compromises unless it is made clear that what is being done dose not prejudice anybody else. To act otherwise opens the court itself to the charge that it did something just as bad as what was complained against. In our opinion, the appointment of these sixteen candidates cannot be accepted and the petitioners are entitled to claim that their marks should be compared with those obtained by the petitioners and the selection made on merit and merit alone. For this purpose, of course, the three candidates who were not called for the test would have to be called and marks given to them. Otherwise they cannot be considered at all.In a more recent judgment, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Rajubhai Somabhai Bharwad & Ors. 2015 (7) SCC 663  the question was whether a sarpanch could enter into a compromise and agree to take back an employee. This court decisively held that such a compromise was not legal:17. The purpose of our referring to the same is that the parliament by the Constitutional amendment required the State Legislature to bring their State laws in conformity with Part IX of the Constitution, Power has been conferred on the Panchayats so that they are able to function as an institution of self-Government. The State Legislature has also been empowered to make provisions by which powers are given to the Gram Panchayats. Once responsibility is given they are to be carried out with sanguine responsibility. A Sarpanch, as we perceive in this case, by entering into a settlement has not only acted contrary to the provisions of the Act and but also the spirit of the responsibility cast on the local self-Government.18. In this context, we cannot be oblivious of a very significant facet. The Labour Court as we find in a single line order has accepted the settlement and has not made any endeavour to even find out whether the Sarpanch was authorised with any kind of resolution to enter into compromise/settlement by the village panchayat. He should have borne in mind that it is not the Sarpanch who was the employer; that much of scrutiny was required on the part of the Labour Court. It will not be a hyperbole if it is said that it is the bounden duty on the part of the presiding officer of the Labour Court to do so and we say so without any hesitation, for court has a sacred duty to scrutinize whether a valid compromise has been entered into or not. He has to be satisfied that the compromise is lawful.19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we allow the appeals set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and that of the Labour Court and remit the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication.22. The lynchpin of the appellants submission was their reliance on Aravind Kumar Srivastava (supra).In that case, this court after reviewing several cases cited by the parties, had summarized the correct approach in matters where concession- based orders could (or could not) be treated as precedent:23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the Appellants as well as the Respondents, can be summed up as under:(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.Before discussing the ratio of the judgment, it would be useful to extract the factual context from which the dispute arose:9. The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. Whereas the Appellants contend that the Respondents herein did not approach the Court in time and were fence-sitters and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the said judgment by approaching the judicial forum belatedly. They also plead some distinguishing features on the basis of which it is contended that the case of the Respondents herein is not at par with the matter which was dealt with by the Tribunal in which order dated June 22, 1987 were passed giving benefit to those candidates who had approached the Court at that time.23. It is thus, evident that in Aravind Kumar Srivastava (supra) the previous orders of the tribunal and the court were based on merits adjudication, and not based on concession; certainly not based on compromise. It was in the background of such facts that denial of relief to similarly situated claims, was held to be unjustified. Most importantly, for the purpose of this case, the court carved out an exception: that subsequent litigants, wishing to benefit from orders made in others cases, had to approach the courts in time, without delay or laches. In the facts of this case, there is no question of any finality to the compromise order: it cannot be treated, by any stretch of the imagination, as an order in rem, or as a binding precedent. Also, the aggrieved appellants, and the contesting candidates (in TANGEDCOs appeal) did not approach the court in time. They woke up after the compromise order, claiming parity, and filed petitions in the court. Clearly, therefore, they cannot claim any benefit from the compromise order.In Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81,  this court ruled that:8. 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.Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle (Ref: Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745,  Anand Buttons Ltd. v State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164,  K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581 ; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455,  and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab (2014) 15 SCC 715) . Recently, in The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati 2019 SCC Online SC 1207 this court observed as follows: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.