Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1429
2007(8) Supreme 101
Supreme Court of india
(From Madras High Court)
B.N. Agrawal, Altamas Kabir & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
D. Boopalan & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Madras Metropolitan W.S.S. Board & Ors. — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 6467 of 6468
Decided on : 02-11-2007
For the Petitioner:T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondent:V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv., T. Harish Kumar, P. Prasanth, S. Guru Krishna Kumar, S.R. Setia, Shiv Kumar Suri, Naveen R. Nath and Pritam Baruah, Advocates.
important point
Doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principle of estoppel but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice.
Headnote:(a)Service Law – Vested rights accrued under Rules can not be taken away by retrospective amendment of statutory Rules arbitrarily and unreasonably. (Para 15)
1986 (Suppl.) SCC 584; (1987) 3 SCC 622 – Relied upon.
(1965) 1 SCR 693 – Distinguished impliedly.
(b)Promissory Estoppel – Doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principle of estoppel but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice and it can be the basis of a cause of action – The doctrine had been evolved by the Courts on the principles of equity to avoid injustice – It was neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel – Its object is to interpose equity shorn of its form to mitigate the rigours of strict law. (Paras 16 to 18 and 38)
AIR 1985 SC 941; (1968) 2 SCR 366; (1979) 2 SCC 409; (2002) 2 SCC 188; (2004) 6 SCC 465; (1970) 1 SCC 582; (2005) 7 SCC 584; (2004) 8 SCC 1 – Relied upon.
(c)Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1978 – Regulation 9 – While the appellants had acquired a right of accelerated seniority, such right cannot be enforced against such persons who were senior to them in the cadre and had already acquired the higher qualification – Such officers may be rendered junior to the appellants by operation of the Regulation as amended in 1993 – The 1993 amendment has created a wholly inequitable situation – Since the claims of either of the affected parties cannot be discarded, the equities have to be balanced so that the amended Leave Regulations of 1993 and 1995 can be construed harmoniously so far as the two groups are concerned. (Para 36)
Facts of the Case :
1.The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board was constituted by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1978. Section 81 (2)(c) of the said Act empowered the Board to make Regulations for the method of recruitment, the qualifications, the pay, the duties and other terms and conditions of service of officers and employees, and the constitution and management of Provident Fund and other Superannuation Funds.
2.In pursuance of the said powers the Board framed the Employees’ Service Regulations 1978, and Leave Regulations, 1978, which were amended from time to time.
3.The amendment of 1995 gave rise to disputes which resulted in the filing of writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court which was reversed by the Division Bench.
Findings of the Court:
Since the claims of either of the affected parties cannot be discarded, the equities have to be balanced so that the amended Leave Regulations of 1993 and 1995 can be construed harmoniously so far as the two groups are concerned.
Result : Appeal disposed of with observations.
judgment
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. —
1. The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was constituted by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Act) for exclusively attending to the growing needs of and for planned development and appropriate regulation of water supply and sewerage services in the Madras Metropolitan Area with particular reference to the protection of Public Health and for all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
2.Section 81 of the said Act empowered the Board to make Regulations, which were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act for carrying out the objects for which it had been enacted. Sub-Section (2) of Section 81 sets out in detail the matters in respect of which such Regulations could be made. Clause (c) of Section 2 empowers the Board to make Regulations for the method of recruitment, the qualifications, the pay, the duties and other terms and conditions of service of officers and employees, and the constitution and management of Provident Fund and other Superannuation Funds.
3.In pursuance of the said powers the Board framed the Employees Service Regulations 1978, and Leave Regulations, 1978, which were amended from time to time.
4.In these appeals, which arise from a common judgment of the Madras High Court in respect of two Writ Appeals, we will be required to consider the amendment to the Leave Regulations by Board Resolution No.86/93 dated 31st March 1993 and Resolution dated 27th February 1995 given effect to by proceedings No. HP/15/93 Personnel and Administration Department dated 20th April, 1993 and proceedings No. EP/05/95 Personnel and Administration Department dated 10th March, 1995.
5. Prior to the proceedings of 29th April, 1993, the Board by its Resolution No. 86/93 dated 31st March, 1993, approved the following amendments to the Service (Leave) Regulations :-
i.The existing Regulation 9 on Study Leave will be retained and shall be applicable to Employees of the Board other than Engineers. Insert the words “(I) for Board Personnel other than Engineers” below the words Study Leave.”
ii. Insert the following as Clause II below the existing Regulation 9 numbered class I as above.
1.For Boards Engineers :-
1.Eligibility:-
(i)A graduate degree in Engineering (in any discipline).
(ii)Should have completed minimum 5 years of service.
(iii)Should have at least 15 years of remaining service.
2.Facilities :-
(i)Study Leave at half pay for a maximum of 30 months during the whole career for higher studies leading to Post Graduate degree from a University recognized by UGC.
(ii)Seniority will be protected. However, no Earned Leave will accrue during the study leave period.
(C)Recognition of Post Graduate qualification acquired while in service.
Once a candidate acquires a First Class Post Graduate Engineering qualification, he will get two years extra weightage in terms of seniority which will be counted for elevation. If he acquires a second class Post Graduate Engineering qualification, he will get one years extra weightage for this purpose. If he does not qualify (after availing study leave) the entire salary drawn during the study leave period will be recovered.(Emphasis added)
b.Miscellaneous:-
An eligible candidate whose application has been sent with prior permission of the Board and has been accepted by the University should execute a Bond, before he joins the University to serve the Board for a minimum period of five years on his rejoining service after study leave. If he wants to quit within this period, he should refund the expenses incurred by the permitted to draw stipend or allowances granted by the institution in addition to the leave salary.
The amendments will be effective from 1.4.1993 and will not be made applicable to the past cases.
(BY ORDER)
Sd/- M.S. Srinivasan,
Mg. Director.”
6.The aforesaid amendments were subsequently altered by the Board on 10th March, 1995 whereby some of the ben
