- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Haryana And Others v. Ram Kumar Mann .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was employed as a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department. On 23-4-1982 he voluntarily tendered his resignation in order to contest elections for the State Legislative Assembly. The Government accepted the resignation on 18-5-1982, thereby terminating the employment relationship. After losing the election, the respondent sought to withdraw his resignation by an application dated 21-5-1982, which the Government rejected.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1984 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Observing that three similarly situated employees—Gurbajan Singh, Daryao Singh, and Smt. Sumitra Devi—had been permitted to withdraw their resignations and were reinstated, the High Court held that denial of similar treatment to the respondent violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It therefore directed the State to reinstate the respondent with consequential benefits.
The present appeal, brought by the State by special leave, challenges the High Court’s judgment dated 10-8-1984.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an employee who has voluntarily resigned and whose resignation has been accepted acquires a legal right to withdraw that resignation and seek reinstatement.
- Whether the State’s earlier decisions permitting other employees to withdraw their accepted resignations create an enforceable right for the respondent under Article 14 (equality before the law).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court framed the central inquiry as the correctness of the High Court’s reliance on Article 14. The Court reasoned as follows:
- Termination of Service: Upon acceptance of the resignation on 18-5-1982, the employer-employee relationship ceased. From that date, the respondent had no subsisting right to the post or to withdraw his resignation.
- Scope of Article 14: Equality under Article 14 is predicated on the existence of an enforceable legal right. It applies when equals are treated unequally without rational basis. Because the respondent had no right to reinstatement after acceptance of his resignation, Article 14 could not be invoked.
- Doctrine of Negative Equality: The Court emphasised that a wrong or irregular benefit extended to others cannot be used to claim a similar benefit. “Two wrongs can never make a right.” Therefore, the fact that three other employees were wrongly allowed to withdraw their resignations did not create parity rights for the respondent.
- High Court’s Error: By treating the earlier wrongful reinstatements as a benchmark for equality, the High Court committed an error. The respondent’s claim lacked a legitimate foundation once his resignation was accepted.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed—High Court order set aside.
As a result, the respondent is not entitled to reinstatement or consequential benefits, and the High Court’s mandamus is quashed. The Court reiterates that Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate or replicate government errors; only those with an independent enforceable right may claim equality. No costs were awarded.
Order
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on 10-8-1984 in CWP No. 1154 of 1984.
2. The admitted facts are that the respondent, while working as a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, had tendered his resignation on 23-4-1982 to contest the election as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. His resignation was accepted on 18-5-1982. He contested the election but was defeated. Thereafter, he filed an application on 21-5-1982 withdrawing his resignation. That was dismissed. Consequently, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. The High Court observed that since three similarly situated persons, viz., Gurbajan Singh, Daryao Singh and Smt Sumitra Devi were allowed to withdraw their resignations and were appointed in the respective posts held by them, the failure to extend similar benefit to the respondent would be violative of Article 14. Therefore, it directed the appellant to reinstate him into service with consequential benefits.
3. The question, therefore, is whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. It is seen that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service and the resignation was accepted by the Government on 18-5-1982. On and from that date, the relationship of employer and the employee between the respondent and the State ceased and thereafter he had no right, whatsoever, either to claim the post or a right to withdraw his resignation which had already become effective by acceptance on 18-5-1982. It may be that the Government for their own reasons, had given permission in similar case, to some of the employees mentioned earlier, to withdraw their resignations and had appointed them. The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e, benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing mis-appropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Article 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously “No”. In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.
Alert