Supreme Court clarifies parity in service termination cases: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs Ram Gopal (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee, whose services were terminated due to irregularities in the initial selection process, is entitled to reinstatement based on parity with another employee who was initially terminated for the same reason but was later allowed to continue in service due to equitable considerations. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others vs Ram Gopal. Judgment Date: 30 January 2020

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2020
Citation: [Not Available in the source]
Judges: S. A. Bobde, CJI, B.R. Gavai, J., Surya Kant, J. The judgment was authored by the majority bench.

Can an employee claim reinstatement based on parity with another employee, when both were terminated for the same reason, but one was allowed to continue in service due to equitable considerations? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (UPPCL) and an employee, Ram Gopal. The court clarified that equitable considerations granted to one employee cannot automatically be extended to another, especially when there are significant differences in their circumstances and when there has been an inordinate delay in seeking relief. This judgment underscores the importance of timely action and the specific nature of equitable remedies.

Case Background

In 1978, UPPCL conducted selections for Class IV positions, including Junior Meter Tester & Repairer, Mate, and Meter Coolie/Chaukidar. Ram Gopal was selected as a Meter Coolie/Chaukidar. However, due to irregularities in the selection process, UPPCL cancelled the selections on November 3, 1978, and terminated all appointees, including Ram Gopal, on November 7, 1978.

Another candidate, Shyam Behari Lal, also terminated, challenged his termination in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court initially ruled in his favor in 1989, stating no reasons were given for the termination. UPPCL appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on November 22, 1993, observed that the reason for termination was clear: “cancellation of result of selection of operating staff.” The matter was sent back to the High Court for reconsideration.

Upon reconsideration, the High Court dismissed Shyam Behari Lal’s petition on merits on May 30, 1997. However, considering that Shyam Behari Lal had already served for 17 years, the court directed UPPCL to consider his continuation in service.

Ram Gopal, after the initial round of litigation in which Shyam Behari Lal had obtained relief from the High Court in 1989, filed a writ petition in July 1990, challenging his termination order of November 7, 1978. A single judge of the High Court allowed Ram Gopal’s petition on April 5, 2007, citing the 1989 decision in Shyam Behari Lal’s case. UPPCL appealed this decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially ruled in favor of Shyam Behari Lal in 1989, stating that no reasons were provided for his termination. However, this order was overturned by the Supreme Court, which clarified that the termination order was indeed a speaking order, citing the cancellation of the selection process as the reason. The matter was then remitted to the High Court.

On reconsideration, the High Court dismissed Shyam Behari Lal’s case on merits but, considering his 17 years of service, directed UPPCL to consider his continuation. Ram Gopal’s writ petition was initially allowed by a single judge, citing the 1989 order in Shyam Behari Lal’s case. However, this was appealed by UPPCL. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed UPPCL’s appeal, emphasizing the equitable considerations that led to Shyam Behari Lal’s continuation in service. The Supreme Court then heard the appeal against this order.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of equitable principles in service law, particularly concerning parity in treatment of employees. While the judgment does not cite any specific statute or constitutional provision, it discusses the principles of equity, delay, and laches in the context of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court also refers to the principle that equity acts in personam and not in rem, meaning that equitable relief is specific to the individual circumstances of the case and cannot be automatically extended to others.

Arguments

Arguments by UPPCL:

• UPPCL argued that there is no legal or factual similarity between the cases of Shyam Behari Lal and Ram Gopal.
• They contended that the termination order was a speaking order, clearly stating the reason for termination as the cancellation of the selection process.
• UPPCL highlighted that Shyam Behari Lal was allowed to continue service due to equitable considerations arising from his 17 years of service, not as a matter of right.
• UPPCL emphasized the inordinate delay in Ram Gopal filing his writ petition, which should not be condoned.

Arguments by Ram Gopal:

• Ram Gopal’s counsel argued that both Shyam Behari Lal and Ram Gopal were recruited through the same office memorandum and terminated by the same order.
• They contended that what is true for one candidate must also be true for the other, and it would be unfair to treat similarly placed persons differently.
• They argued that the High Court rightly extended the parity of the judgment in Shyam Behari Lal’s case to Ram Gopal.

Innovativeness of the argument: The UPPCL’s argument was innovative in emphasizing that the equitable relief granted to Shyam Behari Lal was specific to his circumstances and not a general principle applicable to all similarly terminated employees. They also highlighted the inordinate delay in Ram Gopal’s case, which was a crucial factor in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

• Whether the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of equitable considerations granted to Shyam Behari Lal to Ram Gopal.
• Whether the termination order of Ram Gopal was a non-speaking order.
• Whether the delay in filing the writ petition by Ram Gopal should be condoned.

The court also implicitly dealt with the sub-issue of whether the judgment in Shyam Behari Lal’s case was a judgment in rem or in personam.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• U.P. State Electricity Board and Others v. Shyam Behari Lal [Civil Appeal No. 7123 of 1993] – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to establish that the termination order was a speaking order with a clear reason and overruled the High Court’s earlier finding of non-reasoned termination.
• P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (1975) 1 SCC 152] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that courts should not exercise their extraordinary powers in favor of those who approach them after a long delay and try to unsettle settled matters.
• S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala [(2009) 2 SCC 479] – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to highlight that delay defeats equity and that relief may be denied to those who approach the court after a long delay.
• Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India [(2012) 7 SCC 610] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to show that the balance of justice must be considered when entertaining a petition, and equity that existed in favor of one may fade over time.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347] – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to distinguish between judgments in rem and in personam, emphasizing that the benefit of a judgment in personam cannot automatically be extended to others who did not approach the court in time.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purposes. The court discussed the discretionary nature of this power and the limitations imposed by delay and laches.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court in **U.P. State Electricity Board and Others v. Shyam Behari Lal [Civil Appeal No. 7123 of 1993]** *had already held that the termination order was a speaking order*, which was used to overrule the High Court’s finding of non-reasoned termination.
• The Supreme Court in **P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1975) 1 SCC 152]** *was used to emphasize that courts should not exercise their extraordinary powers in favor of those who approach them after a long delay* and try to unsettle settled matters.
• The Supreme Court in **S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala [(2009) 2 SCC 479]** *was used to highlight that delay defeats equity and that relief may be denied to those who approach the court after a long delay*.
• The Supreme Court in **Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India [(2012) 7 SCC 610]** *was cited to show that the balance of justice must be considered when entertaining a petition*, and equity that existed in favor of one may fade over time.
• The Supreme Court in **State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347]** *was used to distinguish between judgments in rem and in personam*, emphasizing that the benefit of a judgment in personam cannot automatically be extended to others who did not approach the court in time.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by three key factors: the erroneous conclusion of the High Court that the termination order was non-speaking, the lack of similarity between the cases of Shyam Behari Lal and Ram Gopal, and the inordinate delay in Ram Gopal filing his writ petition. The court emphasized that equitable considerations are specific to the individual circumstances of a case and cannot be automatically extended to others. The court also highlighted the importance of timely action in seeking legal remedies and that delay defeats equity.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and precedents, with less emphasis on the factual aspects of the case. The court’s reasoning was primarily centered around the legal principles of equity, delay, and the distinction between judgments in rem and in personam.

Logical Reasoning:

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the legal principles were clear and well-established. The court’s decision was based on the consistent application of these principles to the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was legally untenable and set it aside. The court emphasized that the termination order was a speaking order, the cases of Shyam Behari Lal and Ram Gopal were not similar, and there was an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The court also clarified that equitable considerations are specific to the individual circumstances of a case and cannot be automatically extended to others.

The key reasons for the decision were:

• The High Court erroneously concluded that the termination order was non-speaking.
• There was a lack of similarity between the cases of Shyam Behari Lal and Ram Gopal.
• There was an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition by Ram Gopal.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In view of what has been discussed above, is true that the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, but in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioners are continuing in service for last seventeen years, it would be too harsh to render him jobless at this stage.”
• “The case of the respondent is similarly situated as his appointment pertains to the same selection and no reason has been assigned in the order of cancellation of appointment of the respondent.”
• “One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. … In effect he wants to unscramble a scrambled egg.”

There were no majority and minority opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a unanimous bench of three judges.

The court’s reasoning was based on the legal principles of equity, delay, and the distinction between judgments in rem and in personam. The court applied these principles to the facts of the case and held that the High Court’s order was legally untenable. The court’s decision has implications for future cases involving parity in service matters, emphasizing the importance of timely action and the specific nature of equitable remedies.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reiterates the established principles of equity, delay, and the distinction between judgments in rem and in personam. The court’s decision is based on the application of these principles to the specific facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• Equitable considerations granted to one employee cannot automatically be extended to others.
• Termination orders that clearly state the reason for termination are considered speaking orders.
• Inordinate delay in seeking legal remedies can be a valid ground for denying relief.
• Equity acts in personam and not in rem.
• Judgments in personam cannot be automatically extended to others who did not approach the court in time.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of timely action in seeking legal remedies and the specific nature of equitable remedies. It clarifies that parity cannot be claimed automatically, and each case must be considered based on its unique facts and circumstances. This ruling may impact future cases involving service matters, especially those concerning parity and delay.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition. As a result, the High Court’s interim order in the contempt proceedings was also quashed, and the contempt petition was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that equitable considerations granted to one employee cannot automatically be extended to another, especially when there are significant differences in their circumstances and when there has been an inordinate delay in seeking relief. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding equity, delay, and the distinction between judgments in rem and in personam. There is no change in the previous position of law but a reiteration of the same with the application of the same to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs Ram Gopal clarifies that equitable relief is specific to the individual circumstances of a case and cannot be automatically extended to others. The court emphasized that the termination order was a speaking order, the cases of Shyam Behari Lal and Ram Gopal were not similar, and there was an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The court’s decision reinforces the importance of timely action and the specific nature of equitable remedies in service law.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories: Termination of Service, Parity in Service, Delay and Laches, Writ Jurisdiction, Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Category: Article 226 of the Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: Can I claim reinstatement if another employee in a similar situation was reinstated?
A: Not automatically. The Supreme Court has clarified that equitable relief is specific to the individual and cannot be automatically extended to others. Your case will be considered based on its own merits.

Q: What is a speaking order?
A: A speaking order is one that clearly states the reasons for the decision. In this case, the termination order was considered a speaking order because it cited the cancellation of the selection process as the reason.

Q: What is the impact of delay in filing a writ petition?
A: Delay can be a significant factor in denying relief. The Supreme Court has emphasized that inordinate delay can defeat equity, and courts may refuse to exercise their powers in favor of those who approach them after a long delay.

Q: What does ‘equity acts in personam’ mean?
A: It means that equitable relief is specific to the individual circumstances of a case and cannot be automatically extended to others. It is not a general principle applicable to all similarly situated individuals.

Q: What is the difference between a judgment in rem and in personam?
A: A judgment in rem applies to all similarly situated persons, while a judgment in personam applies only to the parties before the court. The benefit of a judgment in personam cannot automatically be extended to others who did not approach the court in time.