The State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Mann
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.27 of 1985
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.1984 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 1154 of 1984)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.1984 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 1154 of 1984)
Petitioner: The State of Haryana & Ors.
Respondent: Ram Kumar Mann
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.27 of 1985
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.1984 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 1154 of 1984)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.1984 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 1154 of 1984)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & S.SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 20, 1997
Appearances:
Jasbir Malik, Advocate for Mr. Prem Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants.
Ms. Urmila Sirur, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Resignation, withdrawal after its coming in effect- High Court allowing withdrawal on basis of similar withdrawals allowed by Govt. – Held wrong order by Govt. does not give a right to claim parity or equality – High Court erred in directing re-instatement.
Resignation, withdrawal after its coming in effect- High Court allowing withdrawal on basis of similar withdrawals allowed by Govt. – Held wrong order by Govt. does not give a right to claim parity or equality – High Court erred in directing re-instatement.
Constitution of India
Article 14 – Held High Court erred in concluding that there was individuous discrimination – Held doctrine of discrimination is based upon existence of enforceable right – Article 14 to apply only when invidious discrimination meted out to equals without rational basis – Respondent had no right to claim relief -See Service and Labour Law – Resignation.
Held:
It may be that the Government for their own reasons, given permission in similar case, to some of the employees mentioned earlier, to withdraw their resignations and had appointed them. 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.
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 made a right. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on 10.8.1984 in CWP No.1154/84.
2. The admitted facts are that the respondent, while working as a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, had tendered his resignation on April 23, 1982 to contest the election as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. His resignation was accepted on May 18, 1982. He contested the election but was defeated. Thereafter, he filed an application on May 21, 1982 withdrawing his resignation. That was dismissed. Consequently, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. The High Court observed that since three similarly situated persons, viz., Gurbajan Singh, Daryao Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi were allowed to withdraw their resignations were appointed in the respective posts held by them, the failure to extend similar benefit to the respondent would be violative of Article 14. Therefore, it directed the appellant to reinstate him into service with consequential benefits.
3. The question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law? It is seen that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service and the resignation was accepted by the Government on May 18, 1982. On and from that date, the relationship of employer and the employee between the respondent and the State ceased and thereafter he had no right, whatsoever, either to claim the post or a right to withdraw his resignation which had already became effective by acceptance on May 18, 1982. It may be that the Government for their own reasons, given permission in similar case, to some of the employees mentioned earlier, to withdraw their resignations and had appointed them. 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 similar circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? Answer is obviously ‘No’. 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 lion 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 made a right. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on 10.8.1984 in CWP No.1154/84.
2. The admitted facts are that the respondent, while working as a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, had tendered his resignation on April 23, 1982 to contest the election as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. His resignation was accepted on May 18, 1982. He contested the election but was defeated. Thereafter, he filed an application on May 21, 1982 withdrawing his resignation. That was dismissed. Consequently, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. The High Court observed that since three similarly situated persons, viz., Gurbajan Singh, Daryao Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi were allowed to withdraw their resignations were appointed in the respective posts held by them, the failure to extend similar benefit to the respondent would be violative of Article 14. Therefore, it directed the appellant to reinstate him into service with consequential benefits.
3. The question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law? It is seen that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service and the resignation was accepted by the Government on May 18, 1982. On and from that date, the relationship of employer and the employee between the respondent and the State ceased and thereafter he had no right, whatsoever, either to claim the post or a right to withdraw his resignation which had already became effective by acceptance on May 18, 1982. It may be that the Government for their own reasons, given permission in similar case, to some of the employees mentioned earlier, to withdraw their resignations and had appointed them. 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 similar circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? Answer is obviously ‘No’. 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 lion 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 made a right. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.
