Judgement In Rem Extends Benefits To All Similarly Situated Employees, Denying Them Violates Articles 14 & 16: J&K High Court

A judgement in rem is an adjudication pronounced upon the status of a person or a thing by a competent court to the world at large, as opposed to a judgement in personam, which is an ordinary judgement not affecting the status of a person or thing. 

The court made these observations while hearing a plea seeking the extension of benefits of an earlier passed judgment by the court.

It was submitted that the petitioners, who were initially appointed as Accountant cum Storekeepers in the Jammu and Kashmir Handicrafts Corporation under the Massive Carpet Scheme in 1982, were affected by a government decision in 1988 to transfer certain centres to the Handicrafts Development Department.

The government order of 1988 was followed by a policy decision in 2005 to absorb employees of the Massive Carpet Scheme into the Department and to fix their pay scales accordingly.

Petitioners argued that despite the regularization of their services and revision of pay scales through subsequent government orders, they faced a lack of promotion avenues. This led some employees to file a writ petition in 2009 (SWP No. 1672/2009) seeking promotion and other benefits.

In the judgment rendered on such a plea, the Court quashed a specific clause in a government order which had adverse effects on promotions and directed the authorities to consider the petitioners case for promotion to higher posts. Subsequently, an appeal by the State Government was dismissed by the Division Bench on July 4, 2012.

The petitioners contended that the benefits arising from the aforesaid judgment dated February 9, 2012, had been extended to retired individuals, except for the instant petitioners who were denied the same upon retirement. The petitioners argued that such discrimination based on retirement status violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Asserting their similarity in circumstances to the petitioners in SWP No. 1672/2009, the petitioners insisted that the respondents were legally obligated to extend the judgment's benefits to them as well.

Contesting the plea, the respondents asserted that in SWP no. 1672/2009, retired petitioners were considered for promotion post-retirement based on an order from December 1, 2015. They argued that the current petitioners, who filed after retirement, differ from the petitioners in SWP no. 1672/2009 who were in active service when filing their plea.

The respondents contended that after accepting the government order and pension fixation, the current petitioners were estopped from seeking benefits.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Nargal emphasized the principle that all similarly situated persons should be treated alike. The court categorically stated that denying benefits to the petitioners, who fall within the same class of retired employees, would amount to discrimination and violate constitutional provisions.

Referencing State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others 2015 the court reiterated that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, other identically situated persons shall be treated alike and not doing so would amount to discrimination and will be in violation of Article 14.

“Thus, to deny similar benefits to the petitioners on the touchstone of what has already been granted to same set of employees and falling in the category of retired employees would tantamount to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”, the bench underscored.

Delving into the distinction between a judgment in rem and in personam the bench the bench observed that the 2012 judgment which quashed a discriminatory clause was deemed a judgment in rem and hence it was obligatory for the authorities to extend benefits to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not.

“Simply, because the petitioners did not come to the Court when they were in active service cannot be deprived of their legitimate rights, particularly when the judgment passed by this Court was a judgment in rem and 13 in such a situation, the respondents/employers were under a legal obligation to grant the benefit to all the similarly situated employees, notwithstanding the fact as to whether they approached the Court or not”, Justice Nargal maintained.

Based on these considerations the court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the respondents to extend benefits to the petitioners within six weeks.

Case Title: Mehmooda Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 304

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment