2007 Supreme(SC) 1213

2007(6) Supreme 479
Supreme Court of india
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu — Petitioner
versus
Seshachalam — Respondent
Appeal (civil)1938 of 2007
[With CA Nos.1940, 1941, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1952,1954, 1955, 1957, 1958 and 1960 of 2007]
Decided on : 18-09-2007

important points
Mere filing of representation would not save the period of limitation.
No fresh right can be created by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Headnote:(a)Constitution of India – Article 226 – Delay and latches – When by virtue of systematic promotions, the employees in Finance department retired as Additional Secretaries whereas the respondents retired merely as Assistants, grievance should have been made long back before appropriate forum – Tribunal rightly held the Applications to be time barred.(Para 10)

       (b)Constitution of India – Article 226 – Delay and latches – Mere filing of representation would not save the period of limitation – Well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.(Para 11)

       (c)Words and Phrase – Legitimate expectation – Legitimate expectation is a part of the principles of natural justice – No fresh right can be created by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation – By reason thereof only the existing right is saved subject to the provisions of the statute.(Para 11)

       1992 Supp.(2) SCC 351; (2004) 1 SCC 347 – Relied upon.

       (d)Administrative Law – Applicability of Government orders – Government, in pursuance of Tribunal’s directions, upgrading the two petitioners as a one time measure making the arrangement to lapse with their retirement – It incorrect to construe that the notification applied to all similarly situated employees – While construing such a notification, the financial impact thereof is also required to be taken into consideration.(Paras 14 and 15)

       (2005) 13 SCC 161; (2006) 9 SCC 643 – Relied upon.

       (1987) 4 SCC 31; (1974) 1 SCC 19; 2006 (6) SCALE 23 – Distinguished.

       Facts of the case:

       Respondents herein have been working in the Secretariat of the Government of Tamil Nadu.Each and every department in the Government Secretariat prior to 1961 had a separate unit for appointment, promotion etc. The State amended the Special Rules in the year 1961 whereby all the departments in the Secretariat were made the “one unit” for the purpose of appointment and promotion.Appointments in the Secretariat at all entry level posts, i.e., Junior Assistants (subsequently re-designated as Assistants), Assistants (subsequently re-designated as Assistant Section Officers), Typist/Personal Clerks were to be made from the common list of candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.Promotion to different higher posts in different departments was also being made from amongst those employees.The Government of Tamil Nadu, however, by issuing G.O.Ms. No.1290 dated 05.06.1970 excluded the Finance and Law Departments from the “one unit” system.Whereas posts in the cadre of Assistants, Assistant Section Officers, Typists/Personal Clerks continued to be filled up from the common list of candidates, but in Finance and Law Departments, further promotions were effected from amongst the employees allotted thereto only. Appointments to Finance Department were made at random and probably in terms of the option exercised by any particular candidate.Many persons, who have, thus, been ranking higher were employed in “one unit” departments whereas some of the candidates ranking lower were employed under fortuitous circumstances in the Finance Department. The employees working in the Finance Department, therefore, obtained promotions much ahead of their peers or even seniors who were discharging their duties in other departments coming within the “one unit”.

       G.O.Ms. No.3288 (Public Services Department) was thereafter issued on 29.10.1971 specifying Finance and Law Departments as separate units from the level of Superintendent (Section Officer) and above. Rule 4 of the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service was amended in that behalf.The said policy is said to have been implemented.Two employees, S. Kalaiselvan and S. Sivasubramanian, filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the year 1990 claiming promotion and scale of pay at par with those who were working in the Finance Department and who were said to be juniors to them but had been promoted to higher posts in Finance Department.The said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 16.4.1993.

       The Government of Tamil Nadu thereafter amended the Service Rules with retrospective effect from 05.06.1970 by issuing G.O.Ms. No.30 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (D) Department dated 28.1.1994.Upon issuance of the said Government Order, an application for review was filed but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 30.1.1995.The Government was thereafter advised to implement the order of the Tribunal by giving promotion to the concerned employees with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors had been promoted as Assistant Section Officers in the Finance Department. Sanction was also accorded for creation of two supernumerary posts, namely, posts of Assistant Section Officers in the respective departments.Several representations thereafter were made by persons said to be similarly situated claiming promotion and parity in the scale of pay as compared to their counterparts in the Finance Department.A large number of Original Applications were also filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.Upon consideration of various pros and cons, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a GOM bearing No.126 dated 29.5.1998. The said Government Order further stipulated that undertaking should be given by the seniors getting upgradation of their pay with their juniors in the Finance Department in the format enclosed to the effect that they accept the terms and conditions thereto.Respondents made representations before the appellant demanding fixation of their pay at par with their juniors in the Finance Department.As the said request was not acceded to, a large number of original applications were filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.By a common judgment pronounced on 20.1.2004, the Tribunal dismissed the said applications opining that the same were barred by limitation.

       Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.By reason of the impugned judgment dated 21.4.2006, a Division Bench of the High Court, inter alia, held that the original applications filed by the respondents cannot be said to suffer from delay and latches and/or otherwise barred by limitation.It was also opined that the respondents who had not been in service on or before 28.1.1994 came within the scope and ambit of the said GOMs.

       Findings of the Court:

       Respondents’ applications were time barred.

       Result: Appeals allowed.