Gomber, J. - (1.) THIS intra court appeal has been directed against the order dated 23.8.2007 passed by Single Bench whereby appellant's writ petition had been partly allowed to the extent of his absorption on the equivalent post under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereafter referred as 'the Rules of 1969'), but his prayer for salary and other monetary benefits was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts in brief, are that the appellant was appointed as Cycle Sawar on 26.4.1989 on temporary basis for a period of three months to work in the District Women Development Society registered vide Annexure R1 under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. THE society was formed for various projects for the development of women in various districts and on temporary basis persons were engaged for different works. THE grant for the projects was received from the government on project to project basis. On 7.6.2000 three temporary posts were abolished and pursuant thereto the employees working on temporary basis had been ordered to report in different offices of the Women & Child Development Department. As per order dated 22.8.2000, the appellant along with other two employees had been relieved to report to the Directorate, Women & Child Development Department, Jaipur, although the appellant's case was that he was not allowed to join and thus he remained without job and it is only after the filing of writ petition and getting an order in his favour that he was taken into service with effect from 20.9.2007. Before the learned Single Judge he had prayed for absorption in the service as also for getting the salary and other monetary benefits for the intervening period i.e. from 22.8.2000 to 21.9.2007, but the learned Single Judge declined to grant the salary and monetary benefits for the intervening period of seven years. Arguing the appeal it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in dismissing his prayer for salary and monetary benefits because once he was ordered to be absorbed, he became entitled to all benefits. It was further contended that the order impugned was earlier challenged before this court at its Principal Seat at Jodhpur, wherein the respondents admitted that the petitioners were government employees and the Rules of 1969 were applicable to them. Respondents thereupon were directed vide order dated 4.1.2002 to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption on equivalent posts under the Rules of 1969 within a specific period. Review of said order was also dismissed on 25.2.2003. So also the special appeal and restoration applications filed by respondents at Principal Seat of this court at Jodhpur, were dismissed vide orders dated 11.12.2003 and 5.2.2007 respectively. Learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that this order dated 4.1.2002 passed at Principal Seat, cannot be taken as precedent because while allowing the petitions, the learned Single Bench at Principal Seat had specifically observed that the order dated 4.1.2002 be not taken as a precedent. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab & others, 2010 (4) Supreme 534. Although the case of the respondents, as pleaded in their reply, was that the appellant and others were appointed on a temporary basis in District Women Development Agency, however, on account of admission of respondent State before the Principal Seat and consequently passing of order dated 4.1.2002 and the implementation thereof, the learned Single Judge observed that the present appellant as also two more, were neither allowed to join at the place they were asked to report, nor any fresh order of either termination or absorption at other places, had been passed. It was held that there cannot be two sets of employees under similar circumstances where one set is granted relief and same is denied to others on technical grounds. In view of admission of respondents that petitioners were government servants and the Rules of 1969 were applicable to them, and also because of revival of abolished posts, learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the appellant as also other petitioners either for absorption on equivalent posts under the Rules of 1969 or adjust them on preferential basis on the post subsequently revived/sanctioned, and a period of 30 days was granted for the purpose. The learned Single Judge has further held that in case they are absorbed and given posting, their service shall be treated as continuous but they will not be entitled for salary for the intervening period. It is this part of the order, whereby the appellant has not been held entitled for salary for the intervening period i.e. from 22.8.2000 to 21.9.2007, which has been assailed by way of present Special Appeal before this court. We have looked into Annexure R1, which clearly shows that it was a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, and can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be a Department of the State. However, on account of the admission made by the respondents before the Principal Seat of this court at Jodhpur, the order with regard to other employees was passed on 4.1.2002, therefore, the appellant's case was also considered by learned Single Judge on those lines in the interest of justice. Now so far as the question of salary and other monetary benefits for the intervening period of about seven years is concerned, admittedly, the Rules of 1969 cannot be said to be applicable and the other persons who got the monetary benefits, they got them on account of interim orders of the court, whereas in the case of appellant, there has not been any interim order.
(3.) AS per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, an order whereby similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertantly or by mistake, does not confer any legal right on the appellant to get the same relief. Paras 13 and 14 of the judgment rendered in Fuljit Kaur's case (supra), are relevant, which are produced hereunder :- "13. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S.Laungia (supra) in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage for negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and, therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial Forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Art.14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. [vide Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1984 SC 1772, Panchi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 589; and Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 705]. 14. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr, AIR 1995 SC 705; Smt. Sneh Prabha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 540; Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1347; State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 1877; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1241; Union of India & Anr. Vs. International Trading Company & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 3983; M/s Anand Button Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 24)." Admittedly the appellant did not work from 22.8.2000 to 20.9.2007 and thus the rule of 'no work no pay' applies. The contention of the appellant that similarly situated persons had been granted benefit is not tenable in view of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Fuljit Kaur's case (supra) that if inadvertently or by mistake the benefit was granted to others, that cannot confer legal right on the appellant. Learned Single Judge rightly observed that although the petitioner as also others were engaged on temporary basis by the agency registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, but on account of admission of respondent State before the Principal Seat, the order dated 4.1.2002 came to be passed with respect to other similarly situated employees also and they got salary on account of interim orders obtained from the Principal Seat, whereas no such interim order was passed in favour of the appellant by this court. ;