Case Note & Summary
These two civil appeals by special leave arose from a common judgment and order of the Mysore High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by 43 surveyors in the Public Works Department of the former State of Mysore. The appellants, two of those petitioners, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the State of Mysore to promote them to the cadre of Assistant Engineers from the dates on which each was placed in charge of a sub-division, with all consequential seniority and monetary benefits. The grievance was that earlier and later batches of surveyors had received similar retrospective promotion concessions, while the appellants had been denied such benefits. Before the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State employed engineering graduates as surveyors and had a separate cadre of Assistant Engineers. Surveyors posted as officers in charge of sub-divisions were promoted to Assistant Engineers over time. A batch of 27 surveyors placed in charge between March 24, 1944 and December 15, 1944 was promoted with effect from May 21, 1945; another batch placed in charge between May 11, 1945 and January 2, 1946 was promoted with effect from January 17, 1947. By notification dated May 17, 1950, the Government gave those 41 persons the benefit of promotion as Assistant Engineers with effect from the dates of occurrence of vacancies according to seniority and initial pay with weightage from October 1, 1948. The appellants were part of a batch of 63 surveyors placed in charge of sub-divisions between December 28, 1945 and November 13, 1949. The Chief Engineer recommended retrospective promotion for them. By notification dated December 21, 1949, they were promoted as temporary Assistant Engineers against existing vacancies, but their promotions took effect from the date of notification, irrespective of when they had assumed charge. Later, a batch of 107 persons was promoted as Assistant Engineers by notification dated November 15, 1958 with retrospective effect from November 1, 1956, the date the new State of Mysore emerged under the States Reorganisation Act. Further batches of 32 and 124 surveyors were promoted in 1963. The appellants contended that since the State had granted concessions to earlier and later batches, denial to them was discriminatory and without reason. They argued that no service rule prevented the Government from granting similar retrospective promotion, and they should receive the same benefits to avoid being superseded by juniors. The State, in its counter affidavit, stated that the purpose of the concession to the 41 officers was only financial benefit from a particular date; for the 63, necessary details regarding seniority and vacancy dates were not available when the notification was issued, and antedating promotions would have disturbed seniority. The State also argued that after reorganisation the issue was settled and could not be reopened. The Supreme Court framed the central issue as whether a writ of mandamus could issue to command the State to extend an ad hoc concession not founded on any statutory or service rule. The Court held that the concessions shown to the batch of 41 and the batch of 107 were mere ad hoc concessions, not something claimable as of right. There was no service rule which the State had transgressed, nor had the State evolved any principle for promotion from surveyors to Assistant Engineers. Therefore, no mandamus could issue to compel the State to show a similar concession or indulgence to the petitioners. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioners had not filed the writ petition within a reasonable time after May 17, 1950, when the discriminatory concession became known; filing only in 1964 constituted laches, independently barring relief. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Scope of Article 226 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the State to promote them retrospectively as Assistant Engineers because earlier and later batches had received such concessions. The Court held that concessions given to other batches were ad hoc and not claimable as of right; absent transgressed service rule or evolved principle, mandamus cannot issue to command a concession or indulgence. Held that no legal right existed to compel equal treatment based on such ad hoc concessions (Paras not mentioned). B) Limitation and Laches - Delay in Filing Writ Petition - Discretionary Relief - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioners challenged denial of retrospective promotion which crystallized by notification dated May 17, 1950, but filed writ petition only on October 1, 1964. The Court held that the petitioners were guilty of laches by not filing within reasonable time after May 17, 1950, and were therefore not entitled to any relief under Article 226. Held that inordinate delay independently barred the writ petition (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued directing the State to grant retrospective promotion and seniority benefits to the petitioners on the ground that similar concessions were given to other batches of surveyors, when no service rule or established principle mandated such benefits; and whether the petition was barred by laches due to inordinate delay.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the concessions shown to other batches were ad hoc and not claimable as of right; no service rule had been transgressed and no principle for promotion had been evolved, so no writ of mandamus could issue. The petitioners were also guilty of laches for not filing within reasonable time after May 17, 1950.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Writ of mandamus under Article 226 cannot issue to command government to extend ad hoc concessions not founded on service rules or statutory right
- no legal right to equal treatment based on concessions to others
- delay and laches bar discretionary relief under Article 226
- a mere concession or indulgence cannot be claimed as a matter of right
