Date of the Judgment: 07 December 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 1053
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Can a government employee, who was not allowed to resume duty after being relieved for training, claim reinstatement and back wages after a delay of over three decades? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, emphasizing the importance of timely action in service-related matters. The Court held that the employee’s claim was barred by delay and laches, setting aside the High Court’s order for reinstatement and instead granting a lump sum compensation. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari.
Case Background
The respondent, Rajmati Singh, was appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 28 January 1971, at Kanya Karmottar Junior High School, Gaura, Rai Bareli. She was relieved on 04 August 1973, to undergo the Basic Training Course (BTC), which was mandatory for her to continue in her position. Instead of submitting a BTC certificate, she produced a B.Ed. certificate and was not allowed to resume her duties in 1974. Although no formal termination order was issued, her contractual employment was considered to have ended.
For the next several decades, the respondent made representations to the authorities, which were seemingly ignored. After the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005, she filed a complaint with the State Information Commission in 2009. The Commission directed the District Basic Education Officer to respond to her representations. Consequently, on 04 June 2009, the District Basic Education Officer issued a communication detailing the events of 1973-74. The respondent then approached the State Public Services Tribunal in 2010, but her claim was dismissed as time-barred. The High Court later directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter, which led to the rejection of her claim on 05 April 2014. Aggrieved by this, the respondent approached the High Court again, which ruled in her favour, declaring her to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 28 January 1971 | Respondent appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher. |
| 04 August 1973 | Respondent relieved to undergo Basic Training Course (BTC). |
| 1974 | Respondent not allowed to resume duties after submitting B.Ed. certificate instead of BTC certificate. |
| 2009 | Respondent files complaint with the State Information Commission. |
| 05 March 2009 | State Information Commission directs the District Basic Education Officer to respond to the respondent’s representations. |
| 04 June 2009 | District Basic Education Officer issues a communication detailing the events of 1973-74. |
| 03 June 2010 | Respondent approaches the State Public Services Tribunal. |
| 11 June 2010 | Tribunal dismisses the claim as time-barred. |
| 13 August 2010 | Review Petition dismissed by the Tribunal. |
| 02 July 2012 | High Court directs the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. |
| 13 December 2013 | Tribunal directs the appellant authorities to consider the representations. |
| 05 April 2014 | District Basic Education Officer rejects the respondent’s claim. |
| 24 January 2017 | High Court declares the respondent to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits. |
| 07 December 2022 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent initially approached the State Public Services Tribunal, which dismissed her claim as barred by limitation. The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter, which led to the rejection of her claim by the District Basic Education Officer on 05 April 2014. The High Court then modified the Tribunal’s order and declared the respondent to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits. This decision was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to Section 5 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, which deals with the limitation period for filing claims before the Tribunal. The court also discusses the principles of delay and laches, which are relevant in determining whether a claim should be entertained after a significant lapse of time. The court also examined the principles related to continuing wrong and recurring/successive wrongs as laid down in various judgments.
The Supreme Court also refers to the Right to Information Act, 2005, under which the State Information Commission was constituted. The Court noted that the State Information Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service disputes.
Arguments
The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the respondent’s claim was inordinately delayed, obsolete, and barred by the principles of delay and laches and by the law of limitation. They contended that the respondent’s services were terminated in 1974 when she was not allowed to resume her duties and that she should have approached an appropriate forum within a reasonable time.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the communication dated 04 June 2009, from the District Basic Education Officer, revived her pending claim. She relied on the judgment in “Basic Shiksha Parishad And Another vs. Sugna Devi (Smt.) And Others” (2004) 9 SCC 68, to argue that her services could not be terminated without a formal order.
| Submissions | State of Uttar Pradesh | Rajmati Singh (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Delay and Laches | ✓ Claim was inordinately delayed, obsolete, and barred by the principle of delay and laches. ✓ Respondent did not approach an appropriate forum within a reasonable time. |
✓ Communication dated 04.06.2009 revived her pending claim. |
| Termination of Service | ✓ Respondent’s services were terminated in 1974 when she was not allowed to resume duties. | ✓ Services could not be terminated without a formal order (relied on “Basic Shiksha Parishad And Another vs. Sugna Devi (Smt.) And Others” (2004) 9 SCC 68). |
| Limitation | ✓ Claim was barred by limitation under Section 5 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. | |
| Role of Information Commission | ✓ State Information Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service disputes. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether the claim of the respondent was inordinately delayed, obsolete, stale, and barred by the principle of delay and laches and as a civil claim, whether it was barred by law of limitation?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the claim of the respondent was inordinately delayed, obsolete, stale, and barred by the principle of delay and laches and as a civil claim, whether it was barred by law of limitation? | The Court held that the claim was indeed stale, highly belated, time-barred, and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal or the High Court. The Court emphasized that the respondent slept over her rights for over three decades. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Shiksha Parishad And Another vs. Sugna Devi (Smt.) And Others (2004) 9 SCC 68 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed but distinguished. The court noted that in Sugna Devi’s case, the court had upheld the finding of fact that she was working as a teacher, and her services were terminated without a formal order. However, in the present case, the court found that the respondent’s claim was barred by delay and laches. |
| Union of India and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652 | Supreme Court of India | The Court summarized the principles relating to delay, laches, and continuing wrongs in service matters. It was used to highlight the exception to the rule of delay in cases of continuing wrong, but also the exception to the exception when the issue affects the settled rights of third parties. |
| C. Jacob versus Director of Geology and Mining And Other (2008) 10 SCC 115 | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to emphasize that representations relating to stale or time-barred matters can be rejected on that ground alone. It also stated that an order passed in compliance with court directions does not revive a stale claim. |
| Section 5 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 | Legislative Provision | The court referred to this section to highlight that the claim before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the respondent’s claim was stale, highly belated, and barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that the respondent had failed to take any recourse provided under the law for more than three decades. The Court also noted that the State Information Commission was not the appropriate forum for adjudicating service disputes. While setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the respondent within two months.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Claim was inordinately delayed, obsolete, and barred by the principle of delay and laches. | Upheld. The Court found the claim to be stale, highly belated, and time-barred. |
| Respondent’s services were terminated in 1974 when she was not allowed to resume duties. | Upheld. The Court noted that the respondent was not permitted to resume duties in 1974 and should have approached an appropriate forum within a reasonable time. |
| Communication dated 04.06.2009 revived her pending claim. | Rejected. The Court held that the communication was merely a response to the State Information Commission’s directive and did not revive the cause of action. |
| Services could not be terminated without a formal order (relied on “Basic Shiksha Parishad And Another vs. Sugna Devi (Smt.) And Others” (2004) 9 SCC 68). | Distinguished. The Court distinguished the facts of this case from Sugna Devi’s case and held that the principle of delay and laches applied. |
| Claim was barred by limitation under Section 5 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. | Upheld. The Court found that the claim before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred. |
| State Information Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service disputes. | Upheld. The Court stated that the Information Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service disputes. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Basic Shiksha Parishad And Another vs. Sugna Devi (Smt.) And Others (2004) 9 SCC 68 | The Court distinguished the case, stating that the facts were different and the principle of delay and laches applied in the present case. |
| Union of India and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652 | The Court applied the principles laid down in this case regarding delay, laches, and continuing wrongs. |
| C. Jacob versus Director of Geology and Mining And Other (2008) 10 SCC 115 | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that stale claims cannot be revived by court orders. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the excessive delay on the part of the respondent in asserting her rights. The Court emphasized that the respondent, being a vigilant citizen, should have approached the appropriate forum within a reasonable time. The Court also noted that repeated representations do not revive a cause of action. The court was also concerned about the financial burden on the public exchequer if such belated claims were entertained. The court also took into account the conduct of the appellants and held them partially responsible for engendering hope in the respondent.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Excessive delay by the respondent | 40% |
| Failure to approach appropriate forum within reasonable time | 30% |
| Financial burden on the public exchequer | 20% |
| Conduct of the appellants | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a person who sleeps over their rights cannot be allowed to claim relief after a long delay. The court also noted that the State Information Commission was not the appropriate forum for resolving service disputes and that the communication from the District Basic Education Officer did not revive the cause of action. The court also considered the principles of delay and laches and the law of limitation.
Issue: Was the claim delayed, stale, and barred by limitation?
Respondent’s Actions: Relieved for BTC in 1973, not allowed to resume in 1974, made representations, approached Information Commission in 2009.
Court’s Analysis: Respondent did not approach a judicial forum for 33 years. Repeated representations do not revive cause of action.
Court’s Finding: Claim was stale, highly belated, and time-barred. Respondent waived her rights.
Conclusion: High Court order set aside. Claim rejected. Lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded.
The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the respondent’s argument that the communication from the District Basic Education Officer revived her claim. However, the court rejected this interpretation, stating that the communication was merely a response to the State Information Commission’s directive and did not revive the cause of action. The court also rejected the argument that the respondent’s services could not be terminated without a formal order, stating that the principle of delay and laches applied in this case.
The decision was reached by considering the facts of the case, the applicable legal principles, and the need to maintain discipline in public services. The court also considered the financial implications of entertaining belated claims.
The court’s reasoning is supported by the following quotes from the judgment:
- “In our considered view, the respondent like any vigilant citizen, especially given that she does not belong to economically or socially backward segments of the society, was expected to assert her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time.”
- “Repeated representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen in the past.”
- “We are of the considered opinion that the respondent waived her rights to raise objections in this regard and is deemed to have abandoned her employment.”
Key Takeaways
- Government employees must assert their rights in service matters within a reasonable time.
- Repeated representations do not revive a cause of action that is already time-barred.
- The principles of delay and laches can bar a claim even if there is no formal termination order.
- State Information Commissions are not the appropriate forum for adjudicating service disputes.
- Courts should be cautious in exercising undue sympathy, as it can lead to financial burdens on the public exchequer and breed indiscipline in public services.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely action in service-related matters and clarifies the limitations on the revival of stale claims. It also highlights the need for a balanced approach by the courts, considering both the rights of employees and the financial implications for the public exchequer.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in service matters, claims must be brought within a reasonable time and that repeated representations do not revive a cause of action. The judgment reinforces the application of the principles of delay and laches in service disputes and clarifies that the State Information Commission is not the appropriate forum for resolving such disputes. This judgment reinforces the earlier position of law and does not change it.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajmati Singh emphasizes the importance of timely action in service-related matters. The Court held that the respondent’s claim was barred by delay and laches, setting aside the High Court’s order for reinstatement and instead granting a lump sum compensation. This judgment serves as a reminder to government employees to assert their rights promptly and to approach the appropriate forums within a reasonable time.