There Is No Negative Equality; Benefit Conferred Without Legal Basis Cannot Be Relied Upon As A Principle Of Parity
Case: R. Muthukumar Vs Chairman And Managing Director TANGEDCO
Coram: Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi
Case No.: CA 1144 OF 2022
Court Observation: It is one thing for a public employer, to concede in the course of proceedings, to an argument, which it had hitherto clung to, but was untenable. Fairness demands that public bodies, as model employers, do not pursue untenable submissions. In such cases, a concession, which is based on law, and accords to a just interpretation of the concerned law and/or rules, is sustainable. However, it is altogether another thing for a public employer, whose conduct is questioned, and who has succeeded on the merits of the case before the lower forum (in this case, the single judge) to voluntarily agree, in an unreasoned manner, to a compromise. The harm and deleterious effect of such conduct is to prioritize the claim of those before the court, when it is apparent that a large body of others, waiting with a similar grievance (and some of whom probably have a better or legitimate claim on merits to be appointed) are not parties to the proceedings. In such cases, a compromise is not only unjustified, it is contrary to law and public interest.
“A principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality.”
Previous Posts
Post Office/Bank Can Be Held Liable For Frauds Or Wrongs Committed by its Employees: Supreme Court
Dismissal Of An Earlier Section 482 CrPC Petition Does Not Bar Filing Of Subsequent Petition If Facts So Justify: Supreme Court Download Judgement
