LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Monday, September 5, 2011

The respondent No.1 was appointed to the Bihar Judicial Service as Munsif at Hajipur on January 13, 1955. On May 9, 1970, High Court of Patna recommended to the State Government the dismissal of respondent No.1 from service. On the basis of recommendation made by the High Court, the State Government issued a Notification dated January 15, 1972, dismissing the respondent No.1 from service.


                                                              Reportable






              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA




                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION






               CIVIL APPEAL NO.  7630  OF 2011


            (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4339 of 2009)










High Court of Judicature at Patna                   ...Appellant






                                Versus





Madan Mohan Prasad & Ors.                   ...Respondents










                            JUDGEMENT








J.M. PANCHAL, J.








      Leave Granted








2.    This   appeal   by   grant   of   special   leave,   is   directed 






      against   judgment   dated   June   27,   2008,   rendered   by 






      the   Division   Bench   of   High   Court   of   Judicature   at 






      Patna   in   Civil   Writ   Jurisdiction   No.   6538   of   1990   by 



                                                                         2




      which   the   High   Court   of   Patna   on   its   administrative 






      side   is   directed   to   consider   the   case   of   promotion   of 






      the   respondent   No.1   as   also   grant   of   consequential 






      benefits to him in accordance with law.  










3.    The   respondent   No.1   was   appointed   to   the   Bihar 




      Judicial   Service  as  Munsif  at  Hajipur   on  January 13, 






      1955.     On   May   9,   1970,   High   Court   of   Patna 






      recommended   to   the   State   Government   the   dismissal 






      of   respondent   No.1   from   service.   On   the   basis   of 






      recommendation   made   by   the   High   Court,   the   State 






      Government   issued   a   Notification   dated   January   15, 






      1972,   dismissing   the   respondent   No.1   from   service. 






      Thereupon   the   respondent   No.1   filed   W.P.   No.121   of 






      1972 under  Article 32 of the Constitution challenging 






      his   dismissal   from   service   before   this   Court.       The 






      petition filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed vide 






      judgment dated February 23, 1972 on the ground that 






      the   termination   of   service   was   stigmatic   and   was 






      ordered   without   holding   an   enquiry.     It   may   be 



                                                                  3




mentioned that judgment of this Court rendered in the 






petition   filed   by   the   respondent   No.1   is   reported   in 




(1973)   4   SCC   166.     In   view   of   the   above   mentioned 




judgment   of   this   Court,   the   respondent   No.1   was 






reinstated   in   service.     However,   he   was   suspended 






from   service   on   April   12,   1974   and   departmental 






proceedings   were   initiated   against   him.     Suspension 






order was challenged by him by filing CWJC No. 820 of 






1974   and   initiation   of   departmental   proceedings   was 






challenged by filing CWJC No. 593 of 1975 in the High 






Court of Patna.  Both the writ petitions were dismissed 






in   the   year   1977   by   the   High   Court.     Thereupon,   he 






had   filed   SLP   (C)   No.4344   of   1977   challenging 






dismissal   of   writ   petition   filed   against   suspension 






order   and   SLP   (C)   No.   4345   of   1977   challenging   the 






decision in CWJC No. 593 of 1975 by which his prayer 






to   set   aside   departmental   proceedings   was   rejected. 






During   the   pendency   of   above   numbered   two   SLPs 






another   Notification   dated   January   30,   1978   was 






issued   by   the   High   Court   suspending   him   from 



                                                                 4




service.   On March 01, 1978 this Court admitted both 






these   Special   Leave   Petitions   which   were   then 






converted   into   C.A.   No.525   of   1978   and   526   of   1978 






respectively.        This   Court   by   judgment   dated 






24.09.1981   directed   the   High   Court   of   Patna   to 






withdraw   the   suspension   order   dated   January   30, 






1978   passed   against   the   respondent   No.1   as   well   as 






departmental   proceedings   initiated   against   him   and 






granted liberty to the High Court to amend the charge 






sheet   before   initiating   departmental   proceedings   and 






to consider the question of his suspension from service 






afresh.     By   Notification   dated   October   12,   1981,   the 






respondent No.1 was posted at Sasaram as Additional 






Munsif,   which   is   the   lowest   post   in   judiciary   and 






which   post   he   had   joined   initially   on   January   13, 






1955.     Another   Notification   was   issued   on   December 






10,   1981   posting   him   at   Darbhanga   as   Additional 






Munsif.     Meanwhile   he   made   various   representations 






to release his dues and to keep one post of appropriate 






rank reserved for him.  He did not receive any reply to 



                                                                  5




those   representations.     Therefore,   he   filed   CWJC 






No.1924   of   1982   on   May   6,   1982   for   quashing 






Notification   dated  December  10,   1981   issued  by   High 






Court posting him as Additional Munsif in Darbhanga 






and   prayed   to   direct   the   High   Court   on   its 






administrative   side   to   give   him   promotions   from   the 






dates   when   his   juniors   named   in   the   petition   were 






promoted   during   the   period   1970   to   1981,   with   all 






increments   and   other   benefits.     He   also   prayed   to 






direct   the   High   Court   to   issue   a   revised   notification 






incorporating therein all the promotions to be given to 






him   from   due   dates   and   to   post   him   as   a   District 






Judge.     After   necessary   amendment   in   the   charge 






sheet,   fresh   departmental   proceedings   were   initiated 






against him on August 19, 1982.  No reply was filed by 






the   respondent   No.1   before   the   Inquiry   Officer.   After 






inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 






December   10,   1982   holding   that   the   charges   levelled 






against   him   were   proved.     Thereupon,   notice   dated 






January   12,   1983   with   copy   of   the   report   of   Inquiry 



                                                                        6




      Officer was served upon him calling upon him to show 






      cause   as   to   why   he   should   not   be   removed   from 






      service.   The respondent No.1 did not file reply to the 






      show cause notice.






4.    When CWJC No.1924 of 1982 had come up for hearing 






      before   the   Court   on   February   24,   1983,   the   learned 






      Additional   Advocate   General   had   informed   the   Court 






      that the departmental proceedings had concluded and 






      second   show   cause   notice   was   served   upon   him, 






      calling   upon   him  to   show   cause   as   to   why   he   should 






      not   be   removed   from   service.     Thereupon,   the   court 






      had   expressed   the   view   that   the   Writ   Petition   had 






      become   infructuous   and   dismissed   the   same 






      accordingly by order dated February 24, 1983.    








      After   receipt   of   show   cause   notice   dated   January   12, 






1983   the   respondent   No.1   instituted   CWJC   No.   2959   of 






1984 to quash (i) notification dated August 19, 1982 issued 






by   High   Court   initiating   departmental   proceedings   against 






him (ii) inquiry report dated  December 10, 1982 forwarded 



                                                                    7




by   the   District   Judge   Darbhanga   and   (3)   notice   dated 






January 12, 1983 calling upon him to show cause as to why 






he should not be removed from service. 










5. The   learned   Additional   Advocate   General   who   appeared 






  for the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2059 of 1984 had 






  informed   the   Court   on   February   26,   1985   that   the 






  respondent   No.1   had   retired   from   service   on   September 






  1,   1983   and   after   his   retirement   the   High   Court   had 






  considered the question of penalty to be imposed on him 






  and   by   Memorandum   dated   June   11,   1984,   he   was 






  directed to show cause as to why the High Court should 






  not make a recommendation to the State Government for 






  withholding   his   pension   permanently,   and   as   no   cause 






  was shown by the respondent No.1, the High Court  had 






  recommended   to   the   State   Government   for   withholding 






  his   pension   permanently   but   no   final   decision   was   yet 






  taken   by   the   State   Government   in   that   respect.     The 






  Division   Bench   hearing   CWJC   No.   2059   of   1984   was   of 






  the   view   that   writ   petition   as   filed   had   become 



                                                                      8




  infructuous   and   an   opinion   was   expressed   that 






  respondent   No.1   should   wait   till   the   final   decision   was 






  taken   by   the   State   Government   about   finalization   of 






  pension.     Accordingly,   writ   petition   was   dismissed   as 






  having become  infructuous  by judgment dated February 






  26,   1985   reserving   liberty   to   the   respondent   No.1   to 






  renew his prayer for monetary claims after finalization of 






  pension matter.










6. The grievance of the respondent No.1 was that his claim 






  for promotion from the various dates when his immediate 






  juniors   were   promoted   was   not   considered   by   the   High 






  Court   nor   was   he   paid   benefits.               Under   the 






  circumstances,   he   had   approached   this   Court   by   filing 






  SLP   (C)   No.   8923   of   1983   against   order   dated   February 






  24, 1983 dismissing CWJC No. 1924 of 1982, as having 






  become infructuous.  The said SLP was listed for hearing 






  on August 30, 1983.  It was brought to the notice of this 






  Court that second show cause notice had been issued to 






  the respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.1 was to 



                                                                        9




   retire   from  service  on  August  31,  1983  i.e.   the  next  day 






   when SLP (C) No. 8923 of 2003 was taken up for hearing 






   on   August   30,   1983.     The   respondent   No.1   had 






   thereupon   stated   before   the   Court   that   the   SLP   had 






   become   infructuous   and   sought   permission   to   withdraw 






   the   same.     In   view   of   the   statement   of   the   respondent 






   No.1,   the   SLP   was   disposed   of   as   withdrawn   by   order 






   dated August 30, 1983.  








      Thus,   there   is   no   manner   of   doubt   that   order   dated 






February   24,   1983   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   Patna 






High   Court   in   CWJC   No.   1924   of   1983   refusing   to   grant 






relief   of   promotion   with   deemed   dates   and   monetary 






benefits   had   attained   finality   when   SLP   (C)   No.   8923   of 






1983   filed   against   the   said   order   was   unconditionally 






withdrawn by the respondent No.1 on August 30, 1983.








7. Again the respondent No.1 had filed SLP (C) No. 8621 of 






   1985, against order dated February 26, 1985 dismissing 






   CWJC   No.   2059   of  1984   as  having   become   infructuous. 






   During   the   pendency   of   the   said   SLP,   a   Resolution   No. 



                                                                      10




  10383   dated   August   11,   1985   was   passed   forfeiting 






  permanently   pension   payable   to   respondent   No.1.     The 






  said   Resolution   was   produced   on   the   record   of   SLP   (C) 






  No. 8621 of 1985 on November 25, 1986.  This Court had 






  passed following order on November 25, 1986 in SLP (C) 






  No. 8621 of  1985 :-








           "The Special Leave Petition is dismissed, but 


           we would direct the State of Bihar to restore 


           within six weeks the pensions payable to the 


           petitioner with arrears due on the basis that 


           he had superannuated from service from the 


           date   of   superannuation.     Provident   Fund, 


           Gratuity   and   leave   salary   as   may   be 


           admissible   to   him   on   superannuation   will 


           also be paid to the petitioner."








8. The above quoted order makes it evident that the special 






  leave   petition   which   was   against   order   dated   February 






  26, 1985 passed by the Division Bench of High Court in 






  CWJC   No.   2059   of   1984   was   dismissed.     The   learned 






  counsel   for   the   petitioner   states   at   the   bar   that   the 






  respondent   No.1   was   a   Judicial   Officer   and   therefore, 






  when it was brought to the notice of this Court that his 






  pension   had   been   forfeited   permanently,   this   Court   had 



                                                                        11




  shown  compassion,   concern,   sympathy   and  clemency   to 






  the respondent No.1 and had directed the State of Bihar 






  to restore pension payable to him and pay arrears due on 






  the   basis   that   he   had   superannuated   from   service   from 






  the date of superannuation, and a direction was given to 






  pay   him   Provident   Fund,   Gratuity   and   leave   salary   as 






  might   be   admissible   to   him   on   superannuation. 






  However,   it   is   relevant   to   notice   that   no   direction   was 






  given   to   the   appellant   to   consider   the   case   of   the 






  respondent   No.1   with   retrospective   effect   with   all 






  benefits. 








9. According to the respondent No.1 his pension matter was 






  finalized   on  July  14,   1987.    After  finalization  of  pension 






  matter,   he   filed   CWJC   No.   4862   of   1987   in   the   High 






  Court for lawful claims as were given to his juniors.  The 






  said petition was disposed of on November 9, 1989 with a 






  direction to the respondent No.1 to submit representation 






  to the High Court on its administrative side for legitimate 






  claims   as   were   given   to   his   juniors.     Pursuant   to   the 



                                                                      12




  above   mentioned   direction,   the   respondent   No.1   had 






  submitted representation dated February 12, 1990.   The 






  said   representation   was   considered   by   the   Standing 






  Committee of the Patna High Court and was rejected on 






  March 30, 1990.  






10.Again   respondent   No.1   had   sent   representation   dated 






  April   30,   1990   repeating   his   prayer   to   grant   him   his 






  lawful claims as were given to his juniors.  The same was 






  rejected   by   High   Court   on   its   Administrative   side   vide 






  order   dated   May   25,   1990.     The   respondent   No.1   had 






  made   third   representation   dated   June   23,   1990   to   the 






  same   effect   which   was   rejected   by   the   High   Court   vide 






  communication  dated September  17,  1990.     Thereupon 






  the respondent No.1 had filed CWJC No. 6538 of 1990 in 






  the High Court of Patna.  The Division Bench hearing the 






  same   has   directed   the   appellant   High   Court   to   consider 






  the   case   of   promotion   of   the   respondent   No.1   as   also 






  consequential   benefit   in   accordance   with   law   vide 



                                                                      13




  judgment   dated   June   27,   2008   which   has   given   rise   to 






  the instant appeal.  








11.This   Court   has   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the 






  appellant and the respondent No.1 who has appeared in 






  person.     The   Court   has   also   considered   the   documents 






  forming part of the appeal.  








12.The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that 






  writ   petition   was   filed   by   the   respondent   No.1   on 






  November   10,   1990   i.e.   seven   years   after   he   had 






  superannuated   from   service,   and   therefore,   writ   petition 






  should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and 






  latches   cannot   be   accepted.     The   impugned   judgment 






  nowhere   shows   that   such   a   point   was   argued   by   the 






  appellant before the High Court.  No grievance is made in 






  the memorandum of SLP, that point regarding delay and 






  latches   was   argued   before   the   High   Court   but   the   same 






  was   not   dealt   with   by   the   High   Court   when   impugned 






  judgment was delivered.   Further from the facts noticed, 






  it   becomes   evident   that   by   order   dated   November   9, 



                                                                        14




   1989, passed in CWJC No. 4862 of 1987, the High Court 






   had   directed   the   respondent   No.1   to   submit 






   representation   to   the   High   Court   on   its   administrative 






   side claiming benefits which were given to his juniors but 






   were   denied   to   him,   pursuant   to   which   the   respondent 






   No.1   had   filed   last   representation   on   June   23,   1990 






   which   was   rejected   by   High   Court   on   September   17, 






   1990.   The question of delay and latches will have to be 






   considered from the communication dated September 17, 






   1990   by   which   claim   made   by   the   respondent   No.1   to 






   give   him   benefits   which   were   given   to   his   juniors   was 






   rejected and not from the date of superannuation.  Thus, 






   the respondent No.1 is not liable to be non-suited on the 






   ground of delay and latches in filing writ petition after his 






   superannuation from service.  








      However,   there   is   no   manner   of   doubt   that   the 






respondent   No.1   is  claiming   promotions  to  different  cadres 






from   the   post   of   Additional   Munsif   as   well   as   promotional 






benefits from the due dates as were given to his juniors in 



                                                                               15




the   years   1971,   1974   and   1978.     In   C.W.J.C.   No.   6538   of 






1990   from   which   the   present   appeal   arises   the   petitioner 






had   claimed   following   relief   in   paragraph   20   of   the   writ 






petition :






              "It   is   therefore   respectfully   prayed   Your 


              Lordship   may   be   graciously   pleased   to 


              admit this Writ Petition and may be pleased 


              to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to give 


              all   the   service   claims   of   this   petitioner   as 


              given   to   his   juniors   during   the   period   he 


              was   illegally   kept   out   of   service   and 


              adequate   compensation   for   having   ruined 


              the   career   of   petitioner   as   fully   stated   in 


              para   1   and   4   of   this   writ   petition   and   may 


              be   pleased   to   pass   such   other   order   or 


              orders as may be considered fit and proper". 








If   one   looks   to   the   averments   made   in   the   petition   it 






becomes   at   once   clear   that   the   petitioner   is   claiming 






promotions   to   the   post   of   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division, 






thereafter to the post of Additional District Judge and finally 






to   the   post   of   District   Judge   when   his   juniors   were   given 






such   benefits   in   the   years   1971,   1974   and   1978 






respectively.



                                                                         16




      The   record   shows   that   till   the   respondent   No.1   had 






superannuated   from   service   on   August   31,   1983,   he   was 






discharging   duties   as   Additional   Munsif   and   was   never 






confirmed in the cadre of Munsif.     Therefore, his claim for 






promotion   to   higher   post   could   not   have   been   considered 






unless   and   until   he   was   confirmed   on   the   post   of   Munsif. 






On   this   ground   alone,   the   writ   petition   filed   by   him   was 






liable to be dismissed. 








      There   is   no  manner   of  doubt   that  claim   of   promotion 






made in C.W.J.C. No. 6538 of 1990 was stale one and could 






not   have   been   entertained   by   the   High   Court.     Further 






juniors   to   the   respondent   No.1   who   were   given   benefits   of 






promotion   in   the   years   1971,   1974   and   1978   were   not 






impleaded as respondents in the petition.  In their absence, 






claim advanced by the respondent No.1 could not have been 






examined   by   the   High   Court.     Thus,   the   impugned 






judgment  is liable  to be  set aside  on the  ground that stale 






claim of promotions to different cadres was advanced by the 



                                                                             17




respondent   No.1   after   great   delay   and   that   too   without 






impleading his juniors. 








13.    In  P.S.   Sadasivaswamy  Vs.  State   of   Tamil   Nadu 




(1975)   1   SCC   152,  this   court   has   laid   down   a   firm 




proposition   of   law   that   a   person   aggrieved   by   an   order 






promoting   a   junior   over   his   head   should   approach   the 






Court at least within 6 months or at the most a year of such 






promotion   and   the   High   Court   can   refuse   to   exercise   its 






extraordinary   powers  under   Article  226   in  case  the   person 






aggrieved   does   not   approach   the   Court   expeditiously   for 






appropriate relief and puts forward stale claim and tries to 






unsettle   settled  matters.       Therefore,   C.W.J.C.   No.   6538   of 






1990   in   which   stale   claim   of   promotion   was   made   by   the 






respondent No.1 was liable to be dismissed.








14.The contention of the respondent No.1 that Interlocutory 






   Application   No.   1   of   2009   was   filed   for   condonation   of 






   delay   in   filing   SLP   and   delay   was   condoned   without 






   issuing   notice   to  him  though  it   is   mandatorily   provided 






   in   the   proviso   to   sub-rule(1)   of   rule   10   of   Order   XVI   of 



                                                                          18




   the   Supreme   Court   Rules   that   there   shall   be   no 






   condonation   of   delay   without   notice   to   the   respondent 






   and therefore, the SLP should be dismissed as barred by 






   limitation   has   no   substance.     The   Office   Report   on 






   limitation   dated   December   24,   2008   which   was   placed 






   before this Court along with papers of SLP indicated that 






   there  was  delay   of  eight  days   in  filing   SLP  and  delay   of 






   nine days in re-filing the petition.     The SLP was placed 






   for preliminary hearing before the Court on February 9, 






   2009   and   after   hearing   the   learned   counsel   for   the 






   petitioner, following order was passed :-








               "Delay condoned.




                 Issue notice.




                       There   shall   be   interim   stay   of   the 


            impugned order until further orders."








15.In   order   to   deal   with   the   contention   raised   by   the 






   respondent   No.   1   it   would   be   necessary   to   refer   to   the 






   Scheme   envisaged   by   the   Supreme   Court   Rules,   1950, 






   which   was   subsequently   amended   and   the   Scheme 



                                                                               19




   contemplated by the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as well 






   as certain relevant decisions on the point.








16.The   Supreme  Court  of  India,   in  the  exercise  of  its  rule-






   making  powers, and with the approval of the President, 






   had made the Supreme Court Rules, 1950.  Order XIII of 






   the   Rules   of   1950   dealt   with   appeals   by   special   leave. 






   Rule 1, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the 






   issue raised in this appeal by the respondent No. 1, was 






   reading as under: -








                 "1.    A   petition   for   special   leave   to   appeal 


                 shall   be   lodged   in   the   Court   within   sixty 


                 days   from   the   date   of   refusal   of   a 


                 certificate   by   the   High   Court   or   within 


                 ninety days from the date of the judgment 


                 sought   to   be   appealed   from,   whichever   is 


                 longer:




                        Provided that




         (i)        in   computing   the   period   of   ninety   days 


                    the   time   requisite   for   obtaining   a 


                    certified copy of the judgment sought to 


                    be appealed from shall be excluded;




         (ii)       where the period of limitation claimed is 


                    sixty days from the date of the refusal of 


                    a certificate, the time taken subsequent 


                    to   the   date   of   refusal   in   obtaining   a 


                    certified   copy   of   the   judgment   (in   cases 



                                                                           20




                  where no certified copy of the judgment 


                  had   been   obtained   prior   to   the   date   of 


                  such   refusal)   shall   be   excluded   in 


                  computing the period of sixty days;




         (iii)    where   an   application   for   certificate 


                  made to the High Court is dismissed as 


                  being out of time the period of limitation 


                  shall   count   from   the   date   of   the 


                  judgment   sought   to   be   appealed   from 


                  and not from the date of the dismissal of 


                  the said application;




         (iv)     where an application for leave to appeal 


                  to the High Court from the judgment of 


                  a   single   Judge   of   that   Court   has   been 


                  made   and   refused,   the   period   from   the 


                  making   of   the   application   to   the 


                  rejection   thereof   shall   be   excluded   in 


                  computing the period under this Rule;




         (v)      the   Court   may   for   sufficient   cause 


                  extend the time on application made for 


                  the purpose."










The   Supreme   Court   Rules,   1950   were   published   in   the 






Gazette   of   India   Extra   Ordinary   dated   January   28,   1950 






and   amended   by   the   Supreme   Court   of   India   Notifications 






dated April 25, 1950, July 5, 1950, August 19, 1950, June 






18,  1951,  May   6,   1952,   January  16,   1954,   July  10,   1954, 






April   12,   1955,   March   19,   1956,   July   14,   1956,   July   11, 






1957,   November   22,   1957,   January   9,   1958   and   April   8, 



                                                                            21




1959.     After   amendment   Order   XIII   Rule   1   provided   as 






under: -








             "1.    Subject   to   the   provisions   of   Sections 


             4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 


             (36 of 1963) a Petition for Special Leave to 


             Appeal   shall   be   lodged   in   the   Court   in   a 


             case where a certificate for leave to appeal 


             was refused by the High Court within sixty 


             days   from   the   date   of   the   order   of   refusal 


             and   any   other   case   within   ninety   days 


             from the date of judgment or order sought 


             to be appealed from."










       Till   the   Supreme   Court   Rules   1966   were   made 






by   the   Supreme   Court,   it   was   the   practice   of   this 






Court   to   condone   the   delay   caused   in   filing   Special 






Leave   Petition,   without   issuing   notice   to   the 






respondent. 










17.    At   this   stage,   it   would   be   relevant   to   notice   a 






Constitution   Bench   judgment   of   this   Court   in  M/s.   Ram 




Lal Kapur and Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Ram Nath and others AIR 




1963 SC 1060.   In the said case the first respondent Ram 




Nath   was   owner   of   a   building   in   Delhi   of   which   the 



                                                                        22




appellant   company   was   one   of  the   tenants.     The   appellant 






moved   the   Rent   Controller,   Delhi   under   Section   7A   of   the 






Delhi   and  Ajmer   Rent  Control  Act,  1947   for   fixation   of  the 






fair   rent   of   the   portion   in   its   occupation.     The   Rent 






Controller,   Delhi   computed   the   fair   rent   for   the   entire 






building at Rs.565/- per month and the fair rent payable by 






the   appellant   at   Rs.146/-   per   month.     The   respondent 






landlord   preferred  an   appeal   against   the   order   of   the   Rent 






Controller   to   the   learned   District   Judge,   Delhi,   but   the 






appeal was dismissed.  Thereafter, he moved the High Court 






of   the   Punjab   under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution 






challenging the correctness and propriety of every finding by 






the   Rent   Controller   and   of   the   District   Judge   on   appeal. 






The   petition   came   on   for   hearing   before   a   learned   single 






Judge   of   the   High   Court.     A   Division   Bench   of   the   High 






Court   had   sometime   previously   held   in   another   batch   of 






cases   that   Section   7A   was   unconstitutional   and   void. 






Following this decision the learned single Judge allowed the 






petition of the first respondent Ram Nath and set aside the 






order of the Rent Controller as without jurisdiction, without 



                                                                        23




considering   the   other   matters   which   would   arise   if   the 






Section was valid and the Rent Controller had jurisdiction. 






From this decision of the learned single Judge the appellant 






preferred  an   appeal   under   the   Letters   Patent   to   a   Division 






Bench.








      Meanwhile,   the   judgment   of   the   Division   Bench 






holding   that   Section   7A   was   unconstitutional   was   brought 






up by way of appeal to this Court.   As the said appeal was 






getting ready to be heard, the appellant, i.e., M/s. Ram Lal 






and  Sons (P)  Ltd.  applied for  and  obtained  special  leave  to 






appeal   to   this   Court   though   the   appeal   filed   by   the 






appellant   before   the   High   Court   was   pending.     Letters 






Patent   Appeal   was   thereafter   withdrawn   by   the   appellant. 






An   appeal   against   judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the 






High   Court   holding   that   Section   7A   was   unconstitutional 






was   heard   by   this   Court   and   the   same   was   allowed   by 






judgment   dated   August   2,   1961   and   this   Court   held 






reversing the judgment of the High Court that Section 7A of 






the Act was valid.



                                                                               24




       It   would   thus   be   seen   that   only   point   which   the 






learned Judge considered and on which the revision petition 






of the landlord respondent was allowed no longer subsisted 






and   hence   the   appellant   was   entitled   to   have   the   appeal 






allowed.     As  the   learned   single   Judge  did  not  consider   the 






other objections raised by the first respondent to the order 






of the Rent Controller fixing the standard fair rent payable 






by the appellant, the appeal had to be remanded to the High 






Court for being dealt with according to law.








       However, a preliminary objection to the hearing of the 






appeal   was   raised   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   landlord 






respondent.     His   submission   was   that   the   special   leave 






which was granted by this Court ex-parte should be revoked 






as   having   been   improperly   obtained.     The   judgment   of   the 






learned   single   Judge   to   appeal   from   which   the   leave   was 






granted  was  dated  January 5, 1955 and  the application  to 






this Court seeking leave was made on January 5, 1959, i.e., 






after   a   lapse   of   four   years.     It   was   obvious   that   it   was   a 






petition   which   had   been   filed   far   beyond   the   period   of 



                                                                           25




limitation   prescribed   by   the   Rules   of   this   Court.     The 






learned counsel for the respondent urged that there were no 






sufficient   grounds   for   condoning   that   long   delay   and   that 






this   Court   should,   therefore,   revoke   the   leave.     The 






Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   was   not   disposed   to 






accede   to   this   request   for   revoking  the   leave.     The   learned 






counsel had drawn attention of the Constitution Bench to a 






few   decisions   in  which   leave   granted   ex-parte   was   revoked 






at the stage of hearing of the appeal on an objection raised 






by   the   respondent.     However,   the   Constitution   Bench   did 






not   consider   that   the   facts   of   the   appeal   before   it   was 






bearing   any   analogy   to   those   in   the   decisions   cited.     The 






Five   Judge   Constitution   Bench   was   of   the   opinion   that   in 






fact   the   grant   of   special   leave   in   the   circumstances   of   the 






case   merely   served   to   shorten   the   proceedings   and   this 






Court   had   acceded   to   the   petition   for   leave   obviously 






because   the   appeals   in   this   Court   from   judgments   in   the 






cases   where   view   was   taken   that   Section   7A   was 






unconstitutional,   were   getting   ready   for   hearing   and   there 






was   some   advantage   if   the   appellant   was   in   a   position   to 



                                                                           26




intervene in those other appeals.  However, the Constitution 






Bench   made   following   pertinent   observations   in   paragraph 






9 of the reported decision.  They are as under: -








             "9.    Nevertheless,   we   consider   that   we 


             should add that, except in very rare cases, if 


             not invariably, it should be proper that this 


             Court   should   adopt   as   a   settled   rule   that 


             the   delay   in   making   an   application   for 


             special   leave   should   not   be   condoned   ex 


             parte but that before granting leave in such 


             cases   notice   should   be   served   on   the 


             respondent   and   the   latter   afforded   an 


             opportunity   to  resist  the  grant  of  the   leave. 


             Such a course besides being just, would be 


             preferable   to   having   to   decide   applications 


             for   revoking   leave   on   the   ground   that   the 


             delay   in   making   the   same   was   improperly 


             condoned   years   after   the   grant   of   the   leave 


             when the Court naturally feels embarrassed 


             by   the   injustice   which   would   be   caused   to 


             the   appellant   if   leave   were   then   revoked 


             when   he   would   be   deprived   of   the 


             opportunity   of   pursuing   other   remedies   if 


             leave   had   been   refused   earlier.     We   would 


             suggest   that   the   rules   of   the   Court   should 


             be   amended   suitably   to   achieve   this 


             purpose."








18.    The   Rules   framed   in   the   year   1950   were   replaced   by 






the present Rules, which are known as The Supreme Court 






Rules, 1966.  They came into force with effect from January 



                                                                             27




15,   1966.     The   weighty   recommendations   made   by   the 






Constitution   Bench   in  Ram   Lal   and   Sons   (P)   Ltd.  case 






(Supra)   were   taken   into   consideration   and   proviso   to   sub-






rule (1) of Rule 10 of Order XVI was enacted, which reads as 






under:-








            "10    (1)   Unless   a   caveat   as   prescribed   by 


            rule 2 of Order XVIII has been lodged by the 


            other   parties,   who   appeared   in   the   Court 


            below,   petitions   for   grant   of   special   leave 


            shall be put up for hearing ex-parte, but the 


            Court,   if   it   thinks   fit,   may   direct   issue   of 


            notice   to   the   respondent   and   adjourn   the 


            hearing of the petition:




                   Provided   that   where   a   petition   for 


            special   leave   has   been   filed   beyond   the 


            period   of   limitation   prescribed   therefor   and 


            is   accompanied   by   an   application   for 


            condonation   of   delay,   the   Court   shall   not 


            condone   the   delay   without   notice   to   the 


            respondent."






Naturally,   the   proviso   requires   that   when   a   petition   for 






special  leave has been filed beyond the period of limitation 






prescribed   therefore   and   is   accompanied   by   an   application 






for condonation of delay, the Court should not condone the 






delay   without   notice   to   the   respondent.     However,   it   is 






noticed that it is consistent practice of this Court even after 



                                                                            28




framing   of   Rules   of   1966   that   delay   is   condoned   ex-parte 






without   issuing   notice   to   the   respondent,   if   the   Court 






hearing   the   special   leave   petition   is   of   the   opinion   that 






sufficient   cause   is   made   out   for   condonation   of   delay   and 






the petitioner has good case on merits.  There is no manner 






of   doubt   that   once   the   Court   forms   an   opinion   that 






sufficient   cause  is  made   out   for   condonation   of   delay   then 






issuance   of   notice   to   the   respondent   calling   upon   him   to 






show   cause   as   to   why   delay   should   not   be   condoned   may 






become   an   empty   formality   and   in   order   to   see   that   the 






respondent   has   not   to   incur   unnecessary   expenditure   for 






coming to Delhi from far off places and engage an advocate 






for contesting application for condonation of delay, delay is 






condoned   ex-parte.     However,   in   view   of   requirements   of 






proviso   to   sub-rule   (1)   of   Rule   10   of   Order   XVI   of   1966 






Rules, it may be prudent to issue notice to the respondent 






before condoning the delay caused in filing the special leave 






petition.   However, if the respondent is not noticed, then a 






right   would   be   available   to   him   at   the   stage   of   hearing   to 






point out that the Court was not justified in condoning the 



                                                                           29




delay   and   that   the   leave,   if   granted,   should   be   revoked   or 






notice issued should be dismissed.








19.    In     Commissioner               of   Customs         vs.      Rangi 




       International  (2003)   11   SCC   366,   the   SLP   from 




       which   the   appeal   arose   was   filed   after   a   delay   of  246 






       days.     When   the   matter   came   up   for   preliminary 






       hearing,   it   was   found   that   without   noticing   the 






       provisions   of   Supreme   Court   Rules   in   regard   to   the 






       condonation   of   delay,   this   Court   on   12.7.2000,   had 






       condoned   the   delay   ex-parte   and   granted   leave.     On 






       2.4.2002,   when   the   respondent   appeared   before   the 






       Court,   a   preliminary   objection   was   raised   that   the 






       condonation   of   delay   was   contrary   to   the   Supreme 






       Court Rules.   Therefore, the Court hearing the appeal 






       had looked to the papers. The Court found that proper 






       particulars   were   not   given   in   the   application   for 






       condonation of delay.  Therefore, the Court hearing the 






       appeal   had   called   upon   the   appellant   to   file   an 






       additional   affidavit   in   support   of   the   application   for 



                                                                         30




       condonation   of  delay.     Accordingly,   the   appellant   had 






       filed   additional   affidavit.   To   this   the   respondent   had 






       filed a counter pointing out that the explanation given 






       by the appellant even in the additional affidavit did not 






       explain   the   delay   satisfactorily   nor   had   the   appellant 






       been diligent in filing the appeal.  This Court heard the 






       learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   as   well   as   the 






       respondent   and   having   considered   the   reasons   given 






       for condonation of delay in the original affidavit as well 






       as in the additional affidavit filed by the appellant was 






       of the opinion that the appellant had not satisfactorily 






       explained   the   delay   in   preferring   the   appeal. 






       Therefore,   accepting   the   contention   of   the   respondent 






       this Court had revoked the leave granted on 12.7.2000 






       and   consequently   dismissed   the   SLP   as   barred   by 






       limitation.








20.    In   view   of   the   course   adopted   by   this   Court   in   the 






       above   mentioned   decision   this   Court   had   heard   the 






       appellant   and   the   respondent   to   satisfy   itself   as   to 



                                                                     31




whether   sufficient   cause   was   made   out   for 






condonation of delay of eight days.   At the beginning, 






the   respondent     No.   1   had   attempted   to   argue   that 






there was unexplained delay of seven months and not 






of   eight  days,   as   was   mentioned  in   the   Office   Report, 






but he could not make his submission good.   It could 






not be pointed out to this Court that the calculation of 






delay   of   eight   days   made   by   the   registry   was 






erroneous.     The   explanation   offered   by   the   appellant 






High Court in the application for condonation of delay 






is   plausible   and   acceptable.     The   averments   made   in 






the   application   for   condonation   of   delay   would   not 






indicate   that   the   appellant   High   Court   was   either 






negligent or diligent in prosecuting the matter nor the 






record  indicates   that the  High  Court  had  given  up lis 






and acquiesced in the impugned judgment of the High 






Court.     On  the   facts   and   in   the   circumstances   of  the 






case   this   Court   is   of   the   opinion   that   this   Court   was 






justified in condoning the delay when the special leave 






petition   was   placed   for   preliminary   hearing   and   was 



                                                                         32




       also   justified   in   issuing   notice   to   the   respondent. 






       Thus,   this   Court   does   not   find   any   substance   in   the 






       contention   raised   by   the   respondent   No.   1   relating   to 






       condonation   of   delay,   which   was   caused   in   filing   the 






       special   leave   petition   and,   therefore,   the   same   is 






       hereby rejected. 






21.    Coming   to   the   merits   of   the   matter   this   Court   finds 




       that   earlier   the   respondent   No.1   had   filed   CWJC   No. 






       1924   of   1982   in   the   High   Court   of   Patna   claiming 






       promotions   from   retrospective   dates   with   all   claims, 






       benefits   and   increments   in   various   cadres   from 






       various dates as and when they had accrued and were 






       given   to   his   immediate   juniors.     His   prayer   was   to 






       direct   the   High   Court   on   its   administrative   side   to 






       issue   a   revised   notification   incorporating   all   the 






       promotions   to   which   he   was   entitled   to   from   various 






       dates as they had accrued when his immediate juniors 






       were promoted and to post him as District Judge.  His 






       another   prayer   in   the   writ   petition   was   to   quash 



                                                                          33




       Notification dated December 10, 1981 by which he was 






       posted   as   Additional   Munsif   in   Darbhanga.     The   writ 






       petition   was   dismissed   by   the   High   Court   vide   order 






       dated   February   24,   1983   as   having   become 






       infructuous.     Feeling   aggrieved,   the   respondent   No.1 






       had filed SLP (C) No.8923 of 1983 in this Court which 






       was   dismissed   as   withdrawn   by   order   dated   August 






       30,   1983.     Thus   the   order   dated   February   24,   1983 






       passed in CWJC No. 1924 of 1982 had attained finality 






       when   SLP   filed   against   the   said   order   was   dismissed 






       as  withdrawn.    There   is  no  manner   of  doubt  that  the 






       order   dated   February   24,   1983   passed   in   CWJC   No. 






       1924   of   1982   refusing   to   grant   promotions   with 






       retrospective   dates   read   with   order   passed   by   this 






       Court   in   SLP   (C)   No.   8923   of   1983,   would   operate   as 






       res judicata.  








22.    It is well settled that promotion is not a matter of right 






       much   less   a   fundamental   right,   more   particularly 






       when   promotion   in   the   subordinate   judiciary   is   to   be 



                                                                     34




dealt   with   by   the   High   Court   which   has   complete 






control over the subordinate judiciary in view of Article 






235   of   the   Constitution.     All   rights   and   claims   of   the 






respondent   No.1   got   crystallized   when   this   Court 






passed   order   dated   November   25,   1986   in   SLP   (C) 






No.8621   of   1985   read   with   order   dated   August   30, 






1983   passed   by   this   Court   in   SLP   (C)   No.   8923   of 






1983.   If the respondent No. 1 had any other claim he 






ought to have made the same before this Court when 






the   above   numbered   Special   Leave   Petitions   were 






disposed   of.     In   fact   both   the   Special   Leave   Petitions 






were   dismissed   and   therefore   all   his   claims   stood 






finally   rejected,   except   the   direction   given   to   pay   him 






the   pension   etc.   mentioned   in   order   dated   November 






25,   1986   passed   in   SLP   (C)   No.8621   of   1985.     No 






grievance   was   made   by   the   respondent   No.1   in 






C.W.J.C. No. 6538 of 1990 that the direction given by 






this Court on November 25,  1986 in SLP (C) No.8621 






of   1985   were   not   complied   with   by   the   appellant. 






Neither   at   the   time   of   disposal   of   SLP   (C)   No.8923   of 



                                                                             35




       1983 nor at the time of disposal of SLP (C) No. 8621 of 






       1985 the respondent No.1 had claimed any other relief 






       and   had   not   obtained   permission   to   claim   relief   of 






       promotion   in   future.     Therefore,   the   relief   claimed   in 






       C.W.J.C. No.6538 of 1990 could not have been granted 






       by the Court. 






23.    It is evident that, CWJC No. 6538 of 1990 was filed for 






       the same reliefs which were claimed in CWJC No. 1924 






       of 1982 and were rejected, and therefore, it could not 






       have been entertained.  Further SLP No. 8261 of 1985 






       which   was   filed   by   the   respondent   No.1   against 






       judgment   and   order   dated   February   26,   1985   of   the 






       High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 2059 






       of   1984   was   dismissed  and   the   only   relief   granted   by 






       this   Court   was   to   direct   the   State   of   Bihar   to   restore 






       pension payable to him with arrears due on the basis 






       that he had superannuated from service from the date 






       of superannuation and a further  direction  was issued 






       to pay him Provident Fund,  Gratuity  and  leave  salary 



                                                                            36




       as   might   be   admissible   to   him   on   superannuation. 






       This   court   had   never   directed   that   the   High   Court   of 






       Patna   on   its   administrative   side   should   consider   the 






       claim   of   the   respondent   No.1   regarding   deemed 






       promotions. 








24.    In   view   of   the   above   discussion,   this   Court   is   of   the 






       opinion   that   the   High   Court   has   erred   in   law   in 






       directing   the   original   respondent   No.2   i.e.   present 






       appellant   to   consider   the   case   of   promotion   of 






       respondent No.1 as also the consequential  benefits in 






       accordance with law by the impugned judgment.  Thus 






       the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.








       For   the   foregoing   reasons   the   appeal   succeeds.   The 






judgment   dated   June   27,   2008   rendered   by   the   Division 






Bench   of   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Patna   in   CWJC   No. 






6578   of   1990,   directing   the   present   appellant   to   consider 






the   case   of   respondent   No.1   for   promotion   as   also 






consequential   benefits,   is   hereby   set   aside.     The   appeal 






accordingly stands disposed of. 



                                               37










                           .............................J.


                                    (J.M. PANCHAL)








                           .............................J.


                                  (H.L. GOKHALE)






NEW DELHI


SEPTEMBER 05, 2011.