Holding

While officers who acquire a post‑graduate qualification are entitled to accelerated seniority, that right cannot be enforced against senior officers already possessing the qualification, and the Board must apply the 1993 regulations to the appellants for their study period and thereafter place them below the last senior officer with the qualification, denying full pay during study leave.

Summary

The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board amended its Leave Regulations in 1993 to grant engineers who obtained a post‑graduate degree accelerated seniority (two years for first class, one year for second class). A 1995 amendment withdrew this benefit and applied the withdrawal even to officers already on study leave. The appellants, who had relied on the 1993 promise and taken study leave, challenged the withdrawal by writ petition; a Single Judge allowed it, but the Madras High Court Division Bench reversed that decision. The Supreme Court examined whether the 1995 amendment could be applied retrospectively, whether promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation applied, and whether accelerated seniority was a vested right enforceable against senior officers. The Court held that while the appellants acquire a right to accelerated seniority, it cannot be enforced against senior officers who already hold the qualification; equity required a balanced solution. Accordingly, the Board must continue to apply the 1993 regulations to the appellants (granting only half‑pay during study leave) and, upon acquisition of the qualification, place them immediately below the last senior officer with the qualification, with the 1995 provisions applying thereafter.

Issues considered

Can the 1995 amendment to the Leave Regulations be applied retrospectively to officers who relied on the 1993 amendment?
Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation protect the appellants' expectation of accelerated seniority?
Is accelerated seniority a vested right enforceable against senior officers already possessing the higher qualification?
How should the equities between officers who already hold the qualification and those studying for it be balanced?

Subjects

service lawaccelerated senioritystudy leavepromissory estoppellegitimate expectationretrospective amendmentequitable constructionpublic serviceseniorityadministrative law

Judgment

.,___

"'(
D. BOOPALAN & ORS. A
v.
MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. BOARD & ORS.

NOVEMBER 2, 2007
--t B
>- [B.N. AGRAWAL, ALTAMAS KABIR AND LOKESHW AR
SINGHPANTA,JJ.]

Service Law-Accelerated seniority-Provided by amendment of
Leave Regulations to those who acquired Post Graduate qualification c
during service-Benefit withdrawn by subsequent amendment-
Withdrawal challenged by those who had pursued the study in view of
the amendment-Withdrawal set aside by Single Judge, while
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court-On appeal, held: The
). candidates pursuing the higher studies acquired the right ofaccelerated D
1 seniority_:_However, such right cannot be enforced against persons
senior to them in the cadre and were already possessing the higher
qualification-In order to balance the equity between the two groups
of officers and in order to give harmonious construction to the two
amendments, the candidates who would get benefit of accelerated E
seniority, to be placed immediately below the last person senior to them
with higher qualification-The beneficiaries not entitled to benefit of
full pay during 'study leave '-Madras Metropolitan WS.S. Board
Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1978-Regulation 9.
;
r Regulation 9 of Madras Metropolitan W.S.S. Board Employees F
(Leave) Regulations, 1978 was amended in 1993 by Respondent-
Board to the effect that a candidate who would acquire Post Graduate
qualification, while in service, if got First Class, would be given two
years extra weightage in terms of seniority and those who would
acquire second class would get one year extra weightage. The said Q,
...+:> benefit was withdrawn by a subsequent amendment in 1995. The
benefit was also withdrawn in respect of those who were undergoing
advance study.

879 H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Appellants, affected by the 1995 amendment, filed Writ Petition
on the ground that the promises made in the amendment of 1993
could not be resiled from, so far as those who had acted on the basis
of that promise were concerned. The Writ Petition was allowed by
Single Judge of High Court. Two writ appeals were filed, one by the
B additional respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and another by Post-Graduate
Engineer affected by the order of Single Judge. Division Bench of
High Court set aside the judgment of Single Judge. Hence the present
appeals.

Respondents interalia contended that amended resolution of
C 1995 had not been given retrospective effect, but had be.en made
applicable to those who were yet to acquire higher qualification
entitling them to the benefits under the amended Regulation of 1993;
and that the appellants having not acquired the higher qualification,
no right accrued to them and at the best they could have a legitimate
D expectation of being given such accelerated seniority, and in no case
doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply to them.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the amended Leave Regulations
E of 1995 have not been given retrospective effect but bad been made
applicable to those who were yet to acquire higher qualifications,
having regard to the fact that the appellants who had acted on the
basis of the incentive held out by the amended 1993 Leave
Regulations, would still be affected adversely in view of the same.
F While the appellants have acquired a right of accelerated seniority,
such right cannot be enforced against such persons who were senior
to them in t.he cadre and had already acquired the higher
qualification. Such officers or some of them may be rendered junior
to the appellants once the benefit under the amended 1993 Leave
G Regulations was extended to the said juniors. The Respondent
authorities possibly did not think of such a situation while amen~ing
the Leave Regulations in 1993. The situation that has now been
reached on account of such amendment in the Leave Regulations
of1993 has created a wholly inequitable situation so far as the other
H officers in the cadre who were senior to the appellants and had also
j-

D. BOOP ALAN v. MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. 881
>-- BOARD
~

acquired the higher qualification earlier than the appellants are A
concerned. Since the claims of either of the affected parties cannot
be discarded, the equities between the two has to be balanced so that
the amended Leave Regulations of 1993 and 1995 can be construed
harmoniously so far as the two groups are concerned.
~ [Paras 35 and 36] [894~F; 895-A-D] B
·-f
> 2. The interest of justice will be amply served if, the balance in
equity is maintained so as to not to affect both the aforesaid groups
of officers in the same cadre. Therefore, it is directed that the
respondent Board and its authorities shall continue to apply the
amended Leave Regulations of 1993 to the appellants and once the c
exercise under the said Regulations is completed the subsequently
amended provisions would thereafter apply to the appellants; if the
appellants, or any of them, obtain the benefit of accelerated seniority
by acquiring the higher qualification, they will be placed immediately
.... below the last person who is senior to them and have already acquired D
~ the higher qualification before the appellants and stand to be
adversely affected by such accelerated seniority. Since by this order
the provisions of the amended Regulations of 1993 are to apply to
the appellants, they shall not be entitled to the benefit of full pay
during the period of "study leave" as provided for in the amended E
Regulations of 1995 and they will be entitled to only half pay as
provided for in the amended Leave Regulations of 1993 and that
these directions will not apply to other officers in the cadre to whom
the amended Leave Rules of 1993 had application and whose
individual cases have already been dealt with by the Board and its F
l
I

authorities and they will continue to be governed by such orders as
may have been passed in their individual cases.
[Para 39) (896-A-F]
MP. Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. v. State ofUttar Pradesh, [1979] 2 SCC
G
409 and Sharma Transport v. Government ofA.P., [2002] 2 SCC 188,
-?<.-" relied on.

TR. Kapoor and Ors. v. State ofHaryana, [1986] Suppl. SCC 584;
P.D. Aggarwal and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 622;
f
H
-\
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
--<
A Surya Narain Yadav and Ors. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.,
""
AIR (1985) SC 941, Union ofIndia v. Mis Inda-Afghan Agencies Ltd.,
[1968] 2 SCR 366; State ofPunjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and Anr., [2004]
6 SCC 465; Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar
Municipal Council, [1970] 1 SCC 582; State Bank's Staff Union
B (Madras Circle) v. Union ofIndia and Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 584; Bannari
~-
Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors., [2005] 1 SCC A.
625 and Zile Singh v. State ofHaryana and Ors., [2004] 8 SCC 1, cited.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6467-
6468of2000.
c
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2000 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos. 104 & 204of1999.

T.L.V. Iyer, and T. Raja for the Appellants.

D V. Krishnamurthy, T. Harish Kumar, P. Prasanth, S. Guru Krishna
,.--(
Kumar, S.R. Setia, Shiv Kumar Suri, Naveen R. Nath and Pritam Baruah l
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALT AMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Madras Metropolitan Water
E
Supply & Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') was
constituted by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act,
1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ' 1978 Act') for exclusively attending
to the growing needs of and for planned development and appropriate
regulation of water supply and sewerage services in the Madras
F Metropolitan Area with particular reference to the protection of Public
~
Health and for all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
2. Section 81 of the said Act empowered the Board to make
Regulations, which were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act
G for carrying out the objects for which it had been enacted. Sub-Section
(2) of Section 81 sets out in detail the matters in respect of which such
Regulations could be made. Clause (c) of Section 2 empowers the Board "-7.-

to make Regulations for the method of recruitment, the qualifications, the
pay, the duties and other terms and conditions of service of officers and
employees, and the constitution and management of Provident Fund and '\=
H
i
D. BOOPALAN v. MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. 883
BOARD [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]
other Superannuation Funds. A
3. In pursuance of the said powers the Board framed the Employees' '
Service Regulations 1978, and Leave Regulations, 1978, which were
amended from time to time.
4. In these appeals, which arise from a common judgment of the B
Madras High Court in respect of two Writ Appeals, we will be required
to consider the amendment to the Leave Regulations by Board Resolution
No.86/93 dated 31st March 1993 and Resolution dated 27th February 1

1995 given effect to by proceedings No. HP/15/93 Personnel and
Administration Department dated 20th April, 1993 and proceedings No. C
EP/05/95 Personnel and Administration Department dated 10th March,
1995.
5. Prior to the proceedings of 29th April, 1993, the Board by its
Resolution No. 86/93 dated 3 lst March, 1993, approved the following O
amendments to the Service (Leave) Regulations:-
i. The existing Regulation 9 on Study Leave will be retained and
shall be applicable to Employees of the Board other than Engineers.
Insert the words "(I) for Board Personnel other than Engineers"
below the words 'Study Leave." E
ii. Insert the following as Clause II below the existing Regulation 9
numbered class I as above.
I. For Board's Engineers:-
1. Eligibility:- F

(i) A graduate degree in Engineering (in any discipline).
(ii) Should have completed minimum 5 years of service.
(iii) Should have at least 15 years of remaining service. G!
2. Facilities :-
(i) Study Leave at half pay for a maximum of 30 months during
the whole career for higher studies leading to Post Graduate degree
from a University recognized by UGC. H'
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A (ii) Seniority will be protected. However, no Earned Leave will
accrue during the study leave period.
(C) Recognition ofPost Graduate qualification acquired while
in service.
B Once a candidate acquires a First Class Post Graduate Engineering
qualification, he will get two years extra weightage in terms of
seniority which will be counted for elevation. lfhe acquires a second
class Post Graduate Engineering qualification, he will get one year's
extra weightage for this purpose. Ifhe does not qualif'; (after availing
c study leave) the entire salary drawn during the study leave period
will be recovered.
(Emphasis added)
b. Miscellaneous:-
D
An eligible candidate whose application has been sent with prior
permission of the Board and has been accepted by the University
should execute a Bond, before he joins the University to serve the
Board for a minimum period of five years on his rejoining service
after study leave. If he wants to quit within this period, he should
E
refund the expenses incurred by the permitted to draw stipend or
allowances granted by the institution in addition to the leave salary.
The amendments will be effective from 1.4.1993 and will not
be made applicable to the past cases.
F (BY ORDER)
Sd/- M.S. Srinivasan,
Mg. Director.'~
6. The aforesaid amendments were subsequently altered by the
G Board on 10th March, 1995 whereby some.of the benefits which had
been extended to the.employees of the Board having a graduate Degree
in Engineering for proceeding on study leave for acquiring a post graduate
engineering qualification, particularly the one in clause ( 11 )(c), were
rendered nugatory.
H 7. The amendment of 1995 gave rise to disputes which resulted in
t
'
D. BOOPALAN v. MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. 885
BOARD [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]
the filing of writ petition No. 11053 of 1996 by the appellants in these A
appeals in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
8. In order to appreciate the cause of dispute the provisions of
Regulation 9 of the MMWSS Board Employees (Leave) Regulations,
1978, as amended by the Board in its Resolution dated 27th February, B
-~ 1995, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Existing Provision Permanent provision
(After amendment earlier)
(i) The existing Regulation 9 on (9) STUDY LEAVE c
Study leave will be retained and shall
be applicable to employees of the Study leave will be retained
Board other than Engineers. Insert Study leave on half pay may be
words "(I) for Board Personnel - granted at the discretion of the
Other than Engineers "below the Board to staff in pay scales to D
words "Study Leave". minimum of which is Rs.
2,000/- or more whdesire to
(ii) Insert the fallowing as Clause II uridergo a special course of
below the existing Regulation 9 higher studies or specialised
numbered Clause 1 as above. training in a professional and E
(II) FOR BOARD'S ENGINEERS: technical subject having a direct
(a) Eligibility. and close connection with their
(i) A graduate Degree in Engineering duty,
(in any discipline). Study leave is not admissible for
) (ii) Should have completed minimum pursuit of academic courses F
> 5 years of service. unrelated to the employees ,
(iii) Should have at least 15 years of work. The maximum Eitudy leave
remaining service. admissible will be 24 months '
(b) Facilities: during the entire service of an
employees and it may be granted ' G
(i) Study leave at half pay for
up to 18 months at any one
maximum of 30 months during the
whole career for higher studies time. Before proceeding on
1

leading to a Post Graduate degree study leave, an employees must ,
from a University recognised by furnish and undertaking to the
UGC. Board for not less than five years H
;
--"'\
'
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
,,
-{
A (ii) Seniority will be protected. after his return from leave. ~

However, no Earned Leave will \
accrue during the study leave period. If the Board considers that the
course of study or training for
(c) Recognition of Post Graduate
attending for which study leave
qualification acquired while in
B is granted, is of particular
Service. Once a candidate acquired
relevance to an employee fro his r
a 1st Class Post Graduate to -\
Engineering qualification he will get efficient fimctioning it may pennit
two years extra weightage in terms such employees to draw full
of Seniority which will be counted for pay for the entire period of his
c elevation. Ifhe acquire a second class leave.
post graduate Engineering
qualification, he will get one year's
extra weightage for this purpose if he
does not qualify after availing study
D leave) the entire salary drdwn during
the study leave period will be --<
recovered. f

(d) Miscellaneous:-
E An eligible candidate whose
application had been sent with prior
permission of the Board and has
been accepted by the University
should execute a Board, before he
F joins the University to serve the
Board for a minimum period of five
years on his rejoining service after
study leave. If he wants to quite
within this period, he should refund >
G the expenses incurred by Board on
him during his study period. The
candidates will be permitted to draw
~
stipend or allowance granted by the
institution in addition to the leave
salary.
H
r
D. BOOP ALAN v. MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. 887
BOARD [ALTAMASKABIR,J.]
....
i '~

The amendment will also apply to those who are already A
undergoing the advance study.
(Emphasis supplied~
(BY ORDER)
i R. Ramalingam B
> Secretary-cum-General Manager''

9. The case as made out in the writ petition is that having made
certain promises by the amendment effected in 1993, the Board was ncit
competent to resile from such promises as far as the \vrit petitioners and c
other candidates who had acted on the basis of such promises were
concerned. The relevant portion of the amendment made to Regulation 9
in 1993 is with regard to the inducement that a candidate who took
advantage of the amended provisions and acquired First Class in Post
)..
Graduate Engineering Qualification would be given two years' extra D
\ weightage in terms of seniority, which would be counted for the purpose
of promotion. If he acquired a second Class in Post Graduate Engineering
qualification he would get one year's extra weightage for the same
purpose. The said benefit was sought to be withdrawn by the subsequerjt
amendment of 1995 and it was specifically stipulated that the amendment E
would also apply to those who were already undergoing the advance
study, giving rise to the disputes, which resulted in the filing of the writ
petition.
10. The WTit petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of
t1· F
/" the Madras High Court by his Judgment and Order dated 4th January,
1999 and the impugned order of 10th March, 1995, was quashed. The
first respondent Board was directed to act in accordance with the
proceedings dated 29th April, 1993, by giving the benefit of seniority and
other benefits to the writ petitioners within a period of two months from G
the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
~
11. Two appeals were filed from the Judgment of the learned Single
Judge. Writ Appeal No. 104 of 1999 was filed by the additional
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Writ Appeal No. 204 of 199? was filed
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] ll S.C.R.

-<
A· by a Post-Graduate Engineer who was affected by the decision of the 'I
learned Single Judge.
12. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court reversed the
Judgment of the Learned Single Judge by its Judgment dated 19th January, .·
2000, against which two appeals were preferred by the appellants herein
B
who were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. )--
\
13. Appearing forthe appellants, Mr.T.L.V. Iyer, senior advocate,
submitted that since the appellants had acted on the basis of the promise
held out by the amended Regulations and had applied for leave and had
c also obtained admission in various colleges to acquire a post graduate
engineering qualification, the respondents were estopped from denying
them the incentives which had been offered earlier by applying the
amended Regulations of 1995 to them as well. Mr. Iyer also urged that
the appellants, or at least some of them, may not have opted for going
D on leave to obtain higher qualifications if the benefit of additional weightage
~
in terms of seniority had not been offered as an incentive. Since .the
I
appellants had already acted on the basis of the promise held out by the
amended Leave Regulations of 1993, the subsequently amended Leave
Regulations of 1995 could not be made applicable in their case as has
E been done by incorporating the following rider to the amendment of 1995,
namely, "the amendment will also apply to those who are already
undergoing the advance study".
14. Coupled with his aforesaid submission regarding promissory
estoppel, Mr. Iyer urged that Rules generally operate prospectively and
F not retrospectively, as has been sought to be done in the instant case.
:~
15. In support of his aforesaid contention Mr. Iyer, referred to the
decision of this Court in TR. Kapoor & Ors. v. State ofHaryana, [1986]
~
Suppl. SCC 584, wherein this Court held that since right to be considered )»)
for promotion is a condition of service, benefits acquired under Rules made \
G ~
under the proviso to Article 309 regarding qualifications for promotion
could not be taken away retrospectively by an amendment to the '"7<-
disadvantage of a Government servant. It was also emphasised that
although under the proviso to Article 309 the Rules could be amended
retrospectively, benefits already acquired under the existing Rules could
H
'}
~·

D. BOOPALAN v. MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. 889
\ r- BOARD [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]
not be taken away. Mr. Iyer also referred to the decision of this Court in A
P.D. Aggarwal and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 622,
where similar views were expressed and it was held that a vested right
could not be taken away by retrospective amendment of statutory Rules
arbitrarily and unreasonably. In addition it was observed that subordinate
i
legislation in the nature of legislative instructions could not supersede or B
I amend statutory Rules of service.
16. On his submission relating to the doctrine of promissory estoppel
Mr. Iyer relied on the decision of this Court in Surya Narain Yadav and
Ors. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., AIR (1985) SC 941,
wherein while considering the said doctrine, the consistent view of this c
Court from Union ofIndia v. Mis Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd., [1968]
2 SCR 366 to the MP. Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
[1979] 2 SCC 409, was reiterated. Mr. Iyer emphasised the observations
made in the MP. Sugar Mill case (supra) to the effect that the doctrine
,..
of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principle of estoppel D
\
but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice and it
can be the basis of a cause of action.
17. In this regard reference was also made to the decision of this
Court in Sharma Transport V. Government ofA. P., [2002] 2 sec 188,
E
wherein it was reiterated that the doctrine of promissory estoppel had
been evolved by the Courts on the principles of equity to avoid injustice
and that it was neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel.
Its object is to interpose equity shorn of its form to mitigate the rigour of
,J strict law.
I' F
18. The last decision on this issue relied upon by Mr. Iyer was that
--4
of this Court in State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd and Anr., [2004]
6 sec 465, which has also dealt with the doctrine of promissory estoppel
in extenso and the views expressed earlier, and in particular in the MP.
Sugar Mill case (supra) and the Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd v. G
_,........ Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, [1970] 1 SCC 582, were re-
emphasised.
19. Mr. Iyer submitted that whatever the circumstances which
prompted the authorities to bring about the amendment of 1995 might
H
-{
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
----(
-I'

A have been, the same could only be given prospective effect and could
not be made applicable with retrospective effect so as to prejudice the
appellants and deprive them of the benefit which had accrued to them
under the 1993 amendment.
20. Appearing for the respondent-Board, Mr. Krishnamurthy strongly
B opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. He contended ~
~
that there was no occasion to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel
to the facts of the instant case, since despite the promise held out in the
amended Regulations of 1993, no actual benefit had accrued to the
appellants who were yet to acquire the post-graduation degree which
c would entitle them to the benefits promised in the amended Regulation of
1993. According to Mr. Krishnamurthy, the benefit of accelerated
promotion was to accrue only upon acquisition of the post-graduate
qualification and the amendments effected by the 1993 Regulation were
rendered null and void before such qualification could be acquired by the
~
D appellants. Mr. Krishnamurthy submitted that if any of the candidates had
f
acquired the post-graduate qualification on the basis of the amended
Regulations of 1993, prior to the amendment effected in 1995, such
candidate would stand outside the operation of the amended Regulations
of 1995.
E
21. Mr. Krishnamurthy contended that soon after the Regulations
were amended in 1993 various objections were raised from officers within
the cadre who had already acquired the post-graduate degree either at
the time of entry into service or soon thereafter and who were senior to
the appellants in service. It was their stand that since the amended ),
F
Regulations of 1993 had no application to them the candidates who took lo-
advantage of the promise of accelerated seniority would become senior ~L

to them despite the fact that they had acquired the post-graduate
qualification long before those who acquired such qualification subsequently ''
on the basis of the amended Regulations of 1993. It was urged that finding
G such objections to be reasonable and of considerable import, the
~-
/
respondents realised that the amendment effected in 1993 would prove
to be inequitable and accordingly a decision was taken to restore the
position prior to the 1993 amendment. Mr. Krishnamurthy submitted that
giving effect to the amended Regulations of 1993 would be highly
H
'f
f

D. BOOP ALAN v. MADRAS METRO POLIT AN W.S.S. 891
BOARD [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]
inequitable and would cause injustice to many employees for no fault of A
theirs. Mr. Krishnamurthy submitted that a similar problem as that in the
instant case had arisen in the case of Bishun Narain Mishra v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (1965] 1 SCR 693, which was decided by a
Constitution Bench. In the said case, this Court was dealing with a
situation where owing to the upward revision of the age of retirement some B
Government servants continued to enjoy the benefit of the higher age limit
1
; of retirement depriving others of such opportunities as they had retired
earlier. Considering the questions fonnulated for a decision in the said case
this Court had to consider whether the change in the rule of retirement
resulted in inequality between public servants in the matter of retirement, c
although it was ultimately held that tl-ie notification on which reliance had
been placed to prove discrimination was not really discriminatory, as it
had treated all public servants alike and fixed 3 lst December, 1961 as
the date of retirement for those who had completed 55 years but not 58
years up to 31st December, 1961. D
22. Mr. Krishnamurthy lastly contended that the 1978 Regulations
were comprehensive in nature and separate provisions had been included
therein with regard to promotion, seniority and leave. He pointed out that
the General Service Regulations of 1978, inter alia, provided for
recruitment, postings, seniority and promotion. Part IV of the said E
Regulations provided for seniority and promotion. It was urged that the
said Regulations did not provide for leave for which separate regulations,
namely, Leave Regulations were framed in 1978. In fact, in the instant
appeals it is Rule 9 of the said Leave Regulations which is under
consideration. F
23. Mr. Krishnamurthy submitted that Rule 9 of the Leave
Regulations make provision for "study leave" only and had been
mistakenly amended to alter the seniority and promotion rules for which
provision had been made under the General Regulations. It was urged
that the said amendment of the seniority and promotion rules, which G
adversely affected the seniority and promotional chances of others in the
same cadre, that had given rise to serious objections and had caused a
rethink on account of the apparent inequity and the subsequent an1endment
of the Leave· Regulations in 1995.
H
---\·.
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 24. Also referring to Rule 3 of the Leave Regulations, Mr.
Krishnamurthy pointed that the said rule specifically dealt with "Earned
Leave", but Rules 3, 21 and 22 had not been amended though changes
therein had been effected by amending Rule 9 that touched upon the said
rules which was subsequently realised by the Board prompting the
B amendment of 1995.
25. Mr. Krishnamurthy urged that no cogent ground had been made
out for interference by this Court with the order of the Division Bench of
the High Court impugned in these appeals.

c 26. While adopting Mr. Krishnamurthy's submissions, Mr. Guru
' Krishna Kumar, learned advocate apperu.ing for some of the respondents,
added a new dimension to Mr. Krishnamurthy' s submissions by urging that
it had been well settled that a mere chance of promotion does not become
~ a service condition and is neither a vested right nor an accrued right which

D could be enforced under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. He reiterated
Mr. Krishnamurthy' s contention that the amendments to the 1993 -1
Regulations were effected at a point of time when the appellants could
only hope to be promoted on the basis of the Regulations of 1993 but
that no right had been vested in them so as to attract the law as laid down
E in this regard in the various decisions cited on behalf of the appellants. It
was contended that except for the portion relating to elevated seniority,
all the other portions of the Regulations of 1993, as amended, had been
retained in the 1995 amendment. He also reiterated that such amendment
had become necessary to prevent injustice between persons of the same
cadre on account of the inequitable nature of accelerated promotion under
F
the 1993 Regulations as amended.
··~.
27. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar pointed out that in order to prevent
injustice to those employees who had acted in terms of the promise
contained in the 1993 Regulations as amended, the amendment of 1995
G provided for full benefit of salaiy and allowances to such candidates even
after they acquired the higher qualifications in terms of the 1993
Regulations. It was further urged that the Board took sufficient pains to ~·
r

balance the equities so that the persons in the same cadre were not treated
as unequals.
H
_,'-,.

D. BOOP ALAN v. MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. 893
-,.-- BOARD [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]
28. Also relying on the decision of this Court in TR. Kapoor 's case A
(supra) Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar submitted that while considering the
question of the Government's power to amend service rules retrospectively
under the proviso to Article 309 it was also held that a vested right which .
had been conferred by the rules could not be taken away by retrospective
--1. amendment, but while any rule which affects the right of a person to be B
~
considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere chance of .
promotion may not be.
29. Mr. Gum Krishna Kumar then referred to the decision of this
Court in State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle) v. Union of India
& Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 584, in support of his contention that even if in
c
certain exigencies amendments had to be effected in the statutory
enactments and rules with retrospective operation which affected the rights
of some of the employees, the same could not be said to be violative either
of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution and was within the legislative
competence of the legislature and the rule-making authorities. D

,
~

30. Reliance was also placed on Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd v.
Commercial Tax Officer & Ors., [2005] 1 SCC 625, for the proposition
that in dealing with the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel
relating to withdrawal of benefits, the Court has to consider all aspects B
including the result sought to be achieved and the public good at large
keeping in mind the fundamental principles of equity. Once public interest
was accepted as the superior equity, individual equity had to give way to
such public equity.
31. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar lastly referred to the decision of this F
Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., [2004] 8 SCC I,
wherein it had been observed that the general rule of retrospective
operation of statutes was that every statute is prospective unless there in
an express or implied intention to make it have retrospective operation.
Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar urged that in the instant case such an intention G
-: had been expressly stated in the amended Regulations of 1995 itself. ,,,,1;
32. Mr. Naveen R. Nath, learned advocate, who appeared fot s~me
of the other respondents, while adopting the submissions made by Mr.
Krislmamurthy and Mr. Guru Krislma Kumar, submitted that since no right H
..~
-~
\
'

894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
·---1;'

A had vested in the appellants during. the period of study for higher
qualifications, their claims could not be based on the doctrine of
promissory estoppel but could at best attract the doctrine of legitimate
expectation which could be based only on validly existing rules and
regulations and an existing right.
B
33. On the facts as disclosed and the submissions made on behalf r-
~
of the respective parties the question which emerges for decision in these
appeals is whether having held out certain benefits relating to grant of
accelerated seniority to the appellants on their acquiring a post graduate
qualification for which study leave was also granted subject to certain
c conditions, the respondents could withdraw the said benefits by amending
the relevant leave regulations and applying the amended regulations to
those who had already acted on the basis of the benefits offered to them.
34. As will be evident from what has been set out hereinbefore, one
D of the main submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents is that

,
the amended resolutions had not been given retrospective effect but had
been made applicable to those who were yet to acquire the higher
qualification which would have entitled them to the benefits under the
amended Leave Regulations of 1993. It has been contended that since
E no right had accrued in favour of the appellants and that they only had a
mere chance of being given accelerated seniority, at best they could have
a legitimate expectation of being given such accelerated seniority, but, in
no event, would the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply to them.
35. The submission that the amended Regulations of 1995 have not
F been given retrospective effect but had been made applicable to those
who were yet to acquire higher qualifications, though attractive, cannot
be accepted, having regard to the fact that the appellants who had acted
on the basis of the incentive held out by the amended 1993 Leave
Regulations, would still be affected adversely in view of the same. The
G question is when once the incentive had been extended could the same
have been withdrawn in the light of the objections raised by other officers
~
of the same cadre who had already acquired the higher qualification but
would be at a disadvantage on account of the said incentive which would
not apply in their case.
H
D. BOOP ALAN v. MADRAS METROPOLITAN W.S.S. 895
BOARD [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]
36. While the appellants have no doubt acquired a right of A
accelerated seniority, in our view, such right cannot be enforced against
such persons who were senior to them in the cadre and had already
acquired the higher qualification. Such officers or some of them may be
rendered junior to the appellants once the benefit under the amended 1993
Leave Regulations was extended to the said juniors. The Respondent B
authorities possibly did not think of such a situation while amending the
Leave Regulations in 1993. The situation that has now been reached on
account of such amendment in the Leave Regulations of 1993 has created
a wholly inequitable situation so far as the other officers in the cadre who
were senior to the appellants and had also acquired the higher qualification c
earlier than the appellants are concerned. Since we cannot discard the
claims of either of the affected parties, we will have to balance the equities
between the two so that the amended Leave Regulations of 1993 and
1995 can be construed harmoniously so far as the two groups are
concerned. D'
37. Having regard to the above, it is not really necessary for us to
go into the question as to whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel or
legitimate expectation would apply to the facts in issue in this case. We
are not also required to decide the issue raised by Mr. Krishnamurthy as
to whether the service conditions relating to seniority and promotion could E
have been altered by way of amendment of the leave rules. Having
realized the above position, Mr. Iyer appearing for the appellants had, in
fact, in his usual fairness, also conceded that a via-media may be arrived
at whereby the appellants were not denied the benefits promised to them
I and at the same time the officers in the cadre who were senior to them F
J
and had already acquired the higher qualification, were not prejudiced
thereby.

38. As was observed in the M.P. Sugar Mill case (supra) the
doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principle of G
estoppel but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice.
The aforesaid view has been subsequently reiterated in various other
decisions of this Court such as Sharma Transport (supra). In our view,
it would be in the fitness of things to follow the aforesaid principle as laid
down by this Com1 in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 39. In our view, the interest of justice will be amply served if, as
submitted by Mr. Iyer, the balance in equity is maintained so as to not to
affect both the aforesaid groups of officers in the same cadre. We,
therefore, dispose of these appeals with the following directions :
(a) The respondent Board and its authorities shall continue to apply
B
the amended Leave Regulations of 1993 to the appellants and once
the exercise under the said Regulations is completed the
subsequently amended provisions would thereafter apply to tht'.
appellants.
c (b) If the appellants, or any of them, obtain the benefit of
accelerated seniority by acquiring the higher qualification, they will
be placed immediately below the last person who is senior to them
and have already acquired the higher qualification before the
appellants and stand to be adversely affected by such accelerated
D seniority.
(c) Since by this order the provisions of the amended Regulations
of 1993 are to apply to the appellants, they shall not be entitled to
the benefit of full pay during the period of "study leave" as provided
for in the amended Regulations of 1995 and they will be entitled
E to only half pay as provided for in the amended Leave Regulations
of 1993.
(d) These directions will not apply to other officers in the cadre to
whom the amended Leave Rules of 1993 had application and
whose individual cases have already been dealt with by the Board
F and its authorities and they will continue to be governed by such
orders as may have been passed in their individual cases.
40. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
parties will bear their own costs. ·;,..
··--&..;,:-

G K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.