The Calcutta High Court reiterates that delayed claims for retrospective service benefits—especially after long-settled appointments and restructuring—cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. The decision upholds established Supreme Court precedents in public employment matters, limiting the scope for similarly placed but belated petitioners to seek parity. This remains binding authority within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/35375/2013 of MUNNA PRASAD SINGH & ANR Vs DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0693052013 |
| Date of Registration | 03-12-2013 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent (e.g., (2010) 2 SCC 59; (2008) 7 SCC 210) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment / Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petitioner can claim retrospective parity in service benefits and promotion after a long delay, citing similarly situated employees whose appointments were regularised through independent litigation. |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
In service matters, especially public employment, if a claim is raised after a long and unexplained delay, courts will not disturb settled appointments or entertain stale demands. The petitioner, not having pleaded his case specifically or produced requisite documents, accepted his post and promotions without protest for years. The restructuring of posts, separate litigation histories, and lack of evidence of identical status defeat claims of parity. Relying on Supreme Court authorities, the High Court stressed that only live disputes—where no significant lapse of time or intervening restructuring has occurred—may merit consideration in writ proceedings. The petitioner’s claim, coming nearly 14 years after his appointment and seeking parity for events dating back further, falls squarely within the principle barring delayed or stale claims. No relief is possible when selection processes and appointments have long since been concluded. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Stale/delayed claims cannot unsettle settled positions; specific pleadings and timely action required; separate litigation histories prevent claim of parity. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner participated in a 1991 selection process and was later appointed as Dozer Operator (Junior Technician Grade-III) in 1999, accepting all subsequent promotions. Gopal Roy and others, internal candidates with a separate litigation and earlier engagement, obtained retrospective regularisation and benefits through independent proceedings. Petitioner’s current claim for retrospective parity surfaced only in 2013, long after appointments and restructuring occurred, and without necessary pleadings or evidence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; informs Supreme Court consideration in similar factual matrices |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates the principle that writ petitions seeking parity in service benefits with similarly situated employees are not maintainable if filed after a long, unexplained delay.
- The Court clarifies that belated or stale demands, particularly where prior litigation or appointments are long settled, will not be entertained to disturb settled positions in service law.
- Specific pleadings and supporting documentary evidence are essential in writ petitions—general claims or reliance on unrelated proceedings will not suffice.
- The restructuring of posts and different litigation histories preclude claims of identical treatment for the petitioners.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the petitioner’s claim for retrospective parity with previously regularised employees was maintainable after a significant lapse of time and career progression.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents, particularly (2010) 2 SCC 59 [M.K. Sarkar], emphasizing that courts should not entertain dead or stale disputes or revive long-settled claims absent justifiable reasons.
- Referenced (2008) 7 SCC 210 [Subha B. Nair] to reinforce that after completion of selection, appointment, and expiration of select lists, belated relief is unwarranted.
- Addressed the lack of specific pleadings and evidence, citing (1988) 4 SCC 534 [Bharat Singh], which prohibits courts from entertaining points not supported by factual pleadings and evidence in writ proceedings.
- Found the petitioner failed to plead or establish equivalence in appointment or service conditions with the earlier regularised employees; accepted his post and promotions without protest for years.
- Held that such belated writ claims, especially in public employment, are barred to prevent unsettling institutional arrangements and frustrating settled expectations.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Argued that he participated in the same selection as Gopal Roy and others and should receive the same benefits as them.
- Claimed denial of benefits amounted to discrimination and arbitrary action.
- Alleged he was called for a test for Grade-III but asserted the process was for Grade-II Dozer Operator and that similarly situated persons received benefits denied to him.
Respondent (DVC):
- Contended that the petitioner’s and Gopal Roy’s cases were factually and procedurally distinct: the latter were internal candidates from 1987 with separate litigation.
- Argued petitioner failed to plead or prove he applied for the post of Dozer Operator Grade-II.
- Pointed out that petitioner had accepted the appointment and all subsequent promotions without protest.
- Asserted that claims made on unpleaded facts or without evidence are not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.
- Relied on decisions establishing the need for timely, supported claims in writ petitions.
Factual Background
In 1991, DVC invited applications for several Dozer Operator posts. The petitioner participated in selection and, after further litigation regarding appointment procedure, was appointed as Dozer Operator (Junior Technician Grade-III) in 1999. Gopal Roy and two others, separately engaged and litigating since 1987, obtained orders for regularisation and retrospective benefits through litigation concluded by 2011. The petitioner subsequently accepted promotions and raised no protest until 2013, when he filed the present writ seeking retrospective parity with Gopal Roy and others.
Statutory Analysis
- Analyzed the requirements for maintainability of writ petitions in service matters, particularly the necessity for timely action and specific pleadings.
- Interpreted constitutional writ jurisdiction in the context of public employment, applying principles from Supreme Court precedent regarding the barring of stale claims.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding the bar on stale and delayed claims in public service matters reaffirmed.
Citations
- (2010) 2 SCC 59 – Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar
- (2008) 7 SCC 210 – Subha B. Nair v. State of Kerala
- (1988) 4 SCC 534 – Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.