.
.
Judgment In Rem vs In Personam: Supreme Court 2014 in Arvind Kumar SrivastavaExplains When Benefit of Earlier Case Extends to All
The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava clarified distinctionbetween judgment in rem and in personam for extending benefit to similarly situatedpersons. The Court on 17.10.2014 held that if earlier judgment strikes down notificationor lays down policy like regularisation scheme, it is in rem and authorities must extendto all per K.C. Sharma v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 721. If judgment grants relief onlyto parties before Court, it is in personam and fence-sitters claiming after delay barred bylaches per U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464. Respondents herewaited 9 years after 1987 cancellation, filed in 1996 after others won in 1991.Practically, what we have seen is that employees cite any favourable judgment to claimparity ignoring delay. Supreme Court said test intent of judgment: in rem or inpersonam. This blog explains Inder Pal Yadav (1985) 2 SCC 648, Maharaj Krishna Bhatt(2008) 9 SCC 24, and when Arvind Kumar Srivastava denies relief to latecomers.
Facts: Tribunal 1991 Judgment for Some Candidates, Respondents Claimed Parity in1996 After 9 Years, SC Says Not Judgment In Rem22.06.1987: CMO cancelled appointments of respondents + others. Othersapproached Tribunal, won 16.08.1991; SC dismissed SLP 12.08.1994. Respondents’ suitdismissed for non-prosecution 1987; no appeal. Filed writ 1995, Claim Petition 1996.Tribunal allowed citing parity; HC affirmed. Supreme Court reversed. Held 1991 Tribunaljudgment was in personam – granted relief to petitioners before it, didn’t strike downcancellation order in rem or lay down policy. The Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma v. Unionof India (1997) 6 SCC 721 extended benefit because Full Bench CAT had struck downpension notification dated 05.12.1988 in rem; hence all pensioners entitled. TheSupreme Court in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 explained in remjudgments bind all. In Arvind Kumar Srivastava, no rule struck down; only individualcancellation quashed for those petitioners. Hence not in rem. The Supreme Court inUnion of India v. C.K. Dharagupta (1997) 3 SCC 395 held benefit of R.P. Joshi judgmentonly to Joshi, not others. A common mistake clients make is citing any win as in rem.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava says check if rule/policy struck down. For employees, filetimely if in personam. For State, argue judgment limited to parties.
Normal Rule of Parity Subject to Delay: Supreme Court Applies Rup Diamonds andS.M. Kotrayya to Bar Fence-SittersSupreme Court held normal rule: similarly situated to be treated alike under Article14. But exception: laches, delay, acquiescence. The Supreme Court in M/s RupDiamonds v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 356: “Petitioners... content to be dormant andchose to sit on fence till somebody else's case came to be decided... cannot beconsidered.” The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC267 denied LTC recovery refund as delay unexplained though others got relief. TheSupreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464 held employeeswho accepted retirement and woke up after Harwindra Kumar judgment disentitled:acquiesced. The Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538:“Delay disentitles... woke up when they had impetus from Virpal Singh Chauhan.” InArvind Kumar Srivastava, 9-year delay + abandoned suit = fence-sitters. The SupremeCourt in Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347 held gross delay ground to denyrelief. In our experience, employees wait for others to win then file. Arvind KumarSrivastava says Courts shouldn’t help such persons. For employees, challenge withinreasonable time. For State, plead laches with dates.
When Benefit Extended: Inder Pal Yadav and Maharaj Krishna Bhatt Distinguished asTimely Filers or Scheme CasesRespondents relied on Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648 where cut-off 01.01.1984 struck down as discriminatory. Supreme Court distinguished: therepetitions pending, Railway framed scheme; Court modified scheme to avoiddiscrimination between those with/without interim orders. Not fence-sitters case.Maharaj Krishna Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24: petitioners filed 1987 itself withAbdul Rashid Rather; not latecomers. Hence relief granted. The Supreme Court in ArvindKumar Srivastava held: “These appellants had not taken out legal proceedings afterjudgment in Abdul Rashid Rather’s case. They had approached Court well in time.” Thustimely filers get parity, not fence-sitters. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. DayanandChakrawarty (2013) 7 SCC 595 extended age 60 benefit as judgment in rem onRegulation 31. Arvind Kumar Srivastava says check if in rem. Here cancellation ordernot quashed in rem, only for petitioners. A common mistake clients make is citingMaharaj Krishna Bhatt without checking filing date. Arvind Kumar Srivastava mandatestimeline check. For Courts, distinguish in rem vs in personam. For employees, don’tdelay.
Conclusion
State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava establishes that judgment in rem inpersonam benefit similarly situated Arvind Kumar Srivastava Supreme Court 2014jurisprudence limits extension of earlier judgments. Supreme Court 17.10.2014 held ifjudgment in personam, fence-sitters after 9-year delay barred per Rup Diamonds (1989)2 SCC 356, U.P. Jal Nigam (2006) 11 SCC 464. Only in rem judgments like K.C. Sharma(1997) 6 SCC 721 extend to all. As the law stands, parity subject to delay/acquiescencetest. For employees, file promptly; don’t wait for others. For State, plead laches ifjudgment in personam. For Courts, identify nature of earlier judgment before grantingparity. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Arvind Kumar Srivastava prevents abuse of Article14 by fence-sitters and ensures finality.
