http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: B.S. BAJWA & ANR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/12/1997

BENCH: CJI, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: (With CA  761614/96, CA  No 8914-15/97 SLP No 23599-23600/97 (CC Nos.8677-8678/97)                          O R D E R      Delay condoned. Leave granted in SLP No 23599-23600/97 (CC Nos. 8677-8678). CA7605-7610/96      There appeals by special leave are against the Judgment dated 21st  December, 1994  of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the judgment dated 25.4.1986 of the Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.772 of 1984 which was filed in the High Court by B.S Bajwa and B.D. Gupta. The grievance made  by them  was, in  substance, with  regard to their seniority  and placement  in the gradation list of the department.      The material  facts in  brief are this. Both B.S. Bajwa and B.D.  Gupta joined  the  Army  and  were  granted  Short Service Commission  on 30th  March. 1963  and 30th  October, 1963 respectively  when they  students in  the final year of the  Engineering   Decgree  Course.   B.S.  Bajwa  graduated thereafter in  June, 1963  and B.D. Gupta graduated in 1964. On being  released from  the Army B.S. Bajwa jointed the PWD (B&R) on  4.5.1971 and B.D. Gupta joined the same department on 12th  May, 1972, There position in the gradation list was shown throughout  with reference  to these  dates of joining the department.  It is  sufficient to  state that throughout their career  as Assistant  Engineer, Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer  both B.S  Bajwa and B.D. Gupta were shown as juniors to B.L. Bansal, Nirmal Singh, GR Chaudhary, D.P.Bajaj and  Jagir  Singh.  It  is  also  undisputed  that B.L.Bansal, Nirmal  Singh, G.R.  Chaudhary, D.P.  Bajaj  and Jagir Singh  got their  promotions Executive Engineer select grade and promotion as Superintending Engineer prior to B.S. Bajwa and  B.D. Gupta.  It is obvious that the grievance, if any, of  B.S. Bajwa B.D. Gupta to their placement below B.L. Bansal, Nirmal  Singh, G.R.  Chaudhary, D.P. Bajaj and Jagir Singh should  have been  from the  very inception  of  their career in the department, i.e. from 1971-72. However, it was only in  the year  1984 that  B.S Bajwa and B.D. Gupta filed the aforesaid  writ petition  in the  High Court  claiming a much earlier  date of  appointment in  the  department.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

learned Single  Judge allowed the writ petition which led to Letters Patent Appeal No. 424/86 being filed by B.L. Bansal, Nirmal Singh,  G.R. Chaudhary,  D.P. Bajaj  and Jagir  Singh before a Division Bench of the High Court.      By the  impugned judgment  the Letters Patent Appeal is said to  have  been  allowed  but  in  fact  it  amounts  to dismissal  of  that  LPA  inasmuch  as  it  granted  certain benefits to  B.S. Bajwa  and B.D. Gupta which has the effect of making  B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta senior to the others by giving them  a much  earlier  date  of  appointment  in  the department with  effect from  6.4.1964 instead of 4.5.71 and 12.5.72. B.S.  Bajwa and  B.D. Gupta  have  preferred  these appeals (CA Nos. 7610/96) despite even with this benefit and they claimed  an even   earlier  date  of  appointment  with reference to  the date  on which they were granted the Short Service Commission on 30th October, 1963. On the other hand, the grievance  of D.P. Bajaj and Jagir Singh filed appeal as to grant  of benefit  of the date 6.4.1964 to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta  because it  affects their seniority in the cadre and would  also adversely  affect their prospects inspite of their earlier  promotion to  the cadre of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer.      It is  significant that  the Division Bench in the LAP, while dealing with the question of laches in filing the writ petition, came to the following conclusion:      "It is  not disputed  that  in  the      confirmation list  of P.W.D.  (B&R)      Branch published from time to time,      the  writ  petitioners  were  shown      junior than  the appellants herein.      No document  has been  produced  on      the record  to show  that they  had      ever objected  to their position in      the gradation  list of  prayed  for      the grant  of the  benefits claimed      by them in the writ petitions filed      in this Courts.      It also  cannot be  denied that the      acceptance  of  the  writ  petition      would adversely  affect the service      conditions  of   the   in   service      employees like  the  appellants  by      altering   their    seniority   and      putting  them   to  disadvantageous      position. position.  Administrative      instructions of the Rules could not      be altered  to their  disadvantage.      The intention  of the  Rule  making      authority is  not so  clear  as  to      unambigiously  is   intention   for      conferment  of   the  benefits   in      favour of the writ petitioners."      Obviously on  this conclusion  alone the  writ petition should have  been dismissed by setting aside the judgment of the Single  Judge  allowing  the  LPA  without  any  caveat. However,  the  Division  Bench,  after  reaching  the  above conclusion. proceeded to grant the benefit of a much earlier data, namely,  6.4.1964 as  the data  of appointment  on the basis of  a concession  of the  Additional Advocate  General made therein  without considering  the effect of the same or of taking  into account  the inconsistency  with its earlier finding. We  have on doubt that the concession on the point, being one  of law,  it cannot bind the State and, therefore, it was  open to the State to withdraw as it has been done by filing a  review petition  in the  High Court  itself.  That

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

apart that  concession made  on behalf  of the  State cannot bind D.P.  Bajaj and Jagir Singh or anyone-else who would be adversely affected  thereby. Those  persons, therefore, have an independent  right to  assail  that  view  taken  by  the Division Bench.  It is  with regard  to  this  part  of  the judgment of which we say that even though the LPA is said to have been  allowed but  it has  the effect and in reality of being dismissed  because it  who certain  benefits  to  B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta who were the respondents therein.      Having heard  both sides we are satisfied that the writ petition was  wrongly entertained  and allowed by the single Judge and,  therefore, the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench have both to be set aside. The undisputed facts appearing  from the  record are  alone  sufficient  to dismiss the  writ petition  on the ground of latches because the grievance made made by B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During  this entire  period of  more than  a decade they were all along treated as junior to the order aforesaid persons and  the rights inter se had crystalised which ought not to  have been  re-opened after  the lapse of such a long period. At  every stage the others were promoted before B.S. Bajwa and  B.D.Gupta and  this position  was known  to  B.S. Bajwa and  B.D. Gupta  right from  the beginning as found by the Division  Bench itself.  It  is  well  settled  that  in service matters  the question of seniority should not be re- opened in   such  situations after the lapse of a reasonable period  because  that  results  in  disturbing  the  settled position which  is not  justifiable.  There  was  inordinate delay in  the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was  sufficient to  decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.      In view of the above conclusion it is not necessary for us to  express any opinion on the merits of the point raised buy B.S.  Bajwa and  B.D. Gupta.  We make  it clear that the view thereon taken by the High Court is not to be treated as concluded or  having affirmation of any kind. The appeals of B.S.Bajwa and  B.D.Gupta are  dismissed and the appeal filed by D.P.Bajaj  and Jagir  Singh is  allowed. With  the result that the  judgment of  the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside  and the  writ petition  filed  by  B.S.Bajwa  and B.D.Gupta stand dismissed. CA7411-7614/96      For  the   reasons  stated  above,  these  appeals  are dismissed. CA Nos 8914-15/97 in SLP (C) No23599-23600/97 (CC Nos. 8677-8678/97)      For  the   reasons  stated  above,  these  appeals  are allowed.