Can’t cause prejudice to party due to delay on court’s part: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 3

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that delay on the court’s part to decide an appeal can’t operate in a manner to cause prejudice to one party, while creating advantage for another.

The assertion came in a service matter where the state claimed that relief could not granted to an ex-serviceman, denied appointment as assistant superintendent jail due to colour blindness, as he had attained the age of superannuation.

The Bench of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur observed the counsel for the state and other appellants brought to the court’s notice that the respondent had attained the age of superannuation prescribed for the post of assistant superintendent jail on May 4, 2019. As such, no relief could be granted. But it was unable to agree with contention since the delay on the court’s part to decide the appeal could not operate to prejudice the respondent and create an advantage to the appellants.

The matter was brought to the HC notice after the state and other appellants filed an appeal in 2017, challenging a judgment by a single Judge directing the issuance of appointment letter to respondent-Jasmer Singh. The Judge asserted “physical standard” regarding eyesight was neither prescribed, nor stipulated, in the advertisement for selection and appointment to the post. As such, the appellants could not refuse to select and appoint the respondent.

The Bench observed at perusal of the advertisement and the rules applicable for appointment to the post showed the absence of specifications regarding the eyesight standard to be possessed by a recruit. It was, as such, not open to the appellants to introduce such a requirement in the recruitment process, more so, when they admitted that the duties were executive in nature, implying these were non-technical.

The Bench asserted: “If at a time when the respondent was eligible for his appointment to the post, he was wrongly denied appointment by the appellants, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong and then refuse to comply with the order of the single Judge, and cause injustice to a person who is not only an ex-serviceman, but a person who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category on the pretext that during pendency of this appeal, he attained the age of superannuation.”

Before parting with the case, the Bench directed the appellants to pay to the respondent wages from February 10, 2016 –– the date when the impugned order was passed by the single Judge –– till the date he attained the age of superannuation and all consequential benefits. For the purpose, the Bench set a three-month deadline.

ABOUT THE CASE

• An ex-serviceman was denied appointment to the post of asst supdt jail due to colour blindness
• A single Judge passed a judgment, directing the issuance of appointment letter to the respondent
• The state moved the HC, saying that he had attained the age of superannuation
• The HC, however, directed the state to pay him wages from the date when the impugned order was passed by the single Judge