.
.
Fence-Sitters Not Entitled to Relief: Supreme Court 2014 in State of U.P. v. ArvindKumar Srivastava Denies Appointment After 9-Year Delay
The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava laid down clear testson when similarly situated persons can claim benefit of earlier judgment and when theyare barred as “fence-sitters”. The Court on 17.10.2014 set aside High Court/Tribunalorders granting appointment to Homeopathic Compounders and Ward Boys whoapproached Court 9 years after cancellation of appointments in 1987. Though Tribunalhad granted relief to others in 1991 and SC affirmed in 1994, respondents waited till1996. Practically, what we have seen is that employees cite K.C. Sharma v. Union ofIndia (1997) 6 SCC 721 to claim parity even after long delay. Supreme Court said normalrule of equality subject to exceptions of laches, delay, acquiescence. This blog explainsM/s Rup Diamonds v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 356, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh(2006) 11 SCC 464, and when Arvind Kumar Srivastava treats latecomers as fence-sitters disentitled to relief.
Facts: Appointment Cancelled 1987, Suit Dismissed for Non-Prosecution, Others Wonin 1991, Respondents Claimed Parity in 1996CMO Varanasi advertised posts 1986. Respondents selected, kept in waiting list.Appointed when selectees didn’t join. New CMO cancelled appointments 22.06.1987.Respondents filed Suit No.695/1987, dismissed for non-prosecution. Norestoration/appeal. Others challenged same order before Tribunal, won 16.08.1991.State’s SLP dismissed 12.08.1994. Only in 1995 respondents filed writ, rejected06.06.1995. Claim Petition 96/1996 allowed by Tribunal citing parity. HC affirmed. TheSupreme Court in M/s Rup Diamonds v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 356 held:“Petitioners re-agitating claims... were content to be dormant and chose to sit on thefence till somebody else's case came to be decided.” The Supreme Court in State ofKarnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC 267 denied relief for unexplained delay even ifothers got benefit. In Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 9-year delay + suit dismissed for non-prosecution = acquiescence. A common mistake clients make is waiting for others towin then claiming parity. Arvind Kumar Srivastava says Courts won’t help fence-sitters.For employees, challenge immediately. For State, plead delay.Three Tests for Extending Benefit of Earlier Judgment: Supreme Court Lays Down Lawin _Arvind Kumar Srivastava_
Supreme Court summarized principles:
1. Normal Rule: All identically situated persons to be treated alike; Article 14 mandatesextension of benefit.
2. Exception: Laches, delay, acquiescence bar claim. Those who didn’t challengewrongful action and woke up after others succeeded are fence-sitters; benefit denied.
3. Exception to Exception: If earlier judgment is in rem with intention to benefit allsimilarly situated, like scheme of regularisation or striking down notification, authoritiesmust extend suo motu per K.C. Sharma v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 721. If judgmentin personam, latecomers must satisfy no delay/laches. The Supreme Court in U.P. JalNigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464 denied relief to employees who retired andclaimed age 60 benefit after Harwindra Kumar judgment, citing acquiescence. TheSupreme Court in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538 held: “Delaydisentitles party to discretionary relief... woke up when they had impetus from VirpalSingh Chauhan.” In Arvind Kumar Srivastava, earlier Tribunal judgment 1991 was inpersonam for parties before it. Respondents’ 9-year silence + abandoned suit =acquiescence. In our experience, Tribunals grant relief citing Article 14 without checkingdelay. Arvind Kumar Srivastava mandates delay test first. For employees, file promptly.For State, raise laches.
27 Years Later Appointment Unjust: Supreme Court Says Directing Appointment at Age50+ Not in Public InterestSupreme Court noted: “As of today, 27 years have passed after issuance ofcancellation orders... most respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above.”Held totally unjust to direct appointment now. The Supreme Court in Union of India v.C.K. Dharagupta (1997) 3 SCC 395 held benefit of earlier judgment only to partiestherein, not others. The Supreme Court in Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC347 held gross delay/laches ground to deny relief. In Arvind Kumar Srivastava,respondents not working like successful candidates; directing appointment wouldprejudice administration. The Supreme Court quoted Halsbury: “Acquiescence... assentafter violation... unjust to give remedy where claimant waived it.” Thus fence-sittersdisentitled. The Supreme Court in Maharaj Krishna Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC24 granted relief but there petitioners had filed in 1987 itself, not fence-sitters. Acommon mistake clients make is citing Maharaj Krishna Bhatt ignoring timely filing.Arvind Kumar Srivastava distinguishes: timely filers get relief, latecomers don’t. ForCourts, check filing date. For employees, don’t wait.
Conclusion
State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava establishes that fence sitters laches delayArvind Kumar Srivastava Supreme Court 2014 jurisprudence bars relief to those whosleep over rights. Supreme Court 17.10.2014 denied appointment after 9-year delay,applying Rup Diamonds (1989) 2 SCC 356, S.M. Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC 267, U.P. JalNigam (2006) 11 SCC 464. Normal rule of parity subject to delay/acquiescenceexception, unless judgment in rem. As the law stands, fence-sitters disentitled;appointment after 27 years unjust. For employees, challenge cancellation immediately.For State, plead laches. For Courts, apply 3 tests before extending benefit. The SupremeCourt’s ruling in Arvind Kumar Srivastava balances Article 14 with finality and preventsresurrection of stale claims
