Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Gopal
Background
In 1978, the U.P. Power Corporation terminated the respondent along with other newly selected Class IV employees after discovering irregularities in the selection process. Years later, a different terminated employee, Shyam Behari Lal, got relief from the High Court on the basis that his termination order gave no reasons, though that relief was later effectively undermined when a later court found his case actually had no merit and only let him keep his job on compassionate grounds after 17 years of service. The respondent, Ram Gopal, filed his own challenge to his 1978 termination only in 1990, and the High Court granted him reinstatement purely by treating his case as identical ("parity") to Shyam Behari Lal's.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held the High Court's reasoning was wrong on three counts: the termination order was not actually unreasoned (the Supreme Court had already said so in Shyam Behari Lal's own case); Shyam Behari Lal's continuation in service was a one-off compassionate exception after 17 years of service, not a legal entitlement, so there was nothing for Ram Gopal to validly claim parity with; and Ram Gopal had waited roughly 12 years after his termination before challenging it, which was too long a delay for a court to excuse. The Court allowed the Corporation's appeal, set aside both the Single Judge and Division Bench orders reinstating Ram Gopal, dismissed his writ petition, and also quashed a related contempt proceeding against the Corporation.
Lesson Learnt
A later employee cannot automatically claim the same relief given to an earlier employee in a similar-looking case if that earlier relief was granted as a one-off compassionate exception rather than a ruling on legal rights, and waiting too many years before challenging an adverse action in court can by itself defeat an otherwise arguable claim.