MOHD AYUB KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra court appeal has been directed against the order dated 23.8.2007 passed by Single Bench whereby appellant's writ petition had been partly allowed to the extent of his absorption on the equivalent post under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereafter referred as 'the Rules of 1969'), but his prayer for salary and other monetary benefits was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts in brief, are that the appellant was appointed as Cycle Sawar on 26.4.1989 on temporary basis for a period of three months to work in the District Women Development Society registered vide Annexure R1 under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. THE society was formed for various projects for the development of women in various districts and on temporary basis persons were engaged for different works. THE grant for the projects was received from the government on project to project basis. On 7.6.2000 three temporary posts were abolished and pursuant thereto the employees working on temporary basis had been ordered to report in different offices of the Women & Child Development Department. As per order dated 22.8.2000, the appellant along with other two employees had been relieved to report to the Directorate, Women & Child Development Department, Jaipur, although the appellant's case was that he was not allowed to join and thus he remained without job and it is only after the filing of writ petition and getting an order in his favour that he was taken into service with effect from 20.9.2007. Before the learned Single Judge he had prayed for absorption in the service as also for getting the salary and other monetary benefits for the intervening period i.e. from 22.8.2000 to 21.9.2007, but the learned Single Judge declined to grant the salary and monetary benefits for the intervening period of seven years.

(3.) AS per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, an order whereby similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertantly or by mistake, does not confer any legal right on the appellant to get the same relief. Paras 13 and 14 of the judgment rendered in Fuljit Kaur's case (supra), are relevant, which are produced hereunder :- "13. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S.Laungia (supra) in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage for negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and, therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial Forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Art.14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. [vide Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1984 SC 1772, Panchi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 589; and Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 705]. 14. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr, AIR 1995 SC 705; Smt. Sneh Prabha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 540; Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1347; State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 1877; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1241; Union of India & Anr. Vs. International Trading Company & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 3983; M/s Anand Button Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 24)."