Judgment in personam

Distinction and scope.

Contentions of the petitioner were that neither notice about grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court nor that of ex parte order by the Supreme Court was served upon him; that he was one of the petitioners who impugned the departmental orders of retrenchment and termination before the High Court, which were set aside to appeal by the Supreme Court; that the moment he came to know about the decision of the Supreme Court, he had approached the Court and filed Civil Review Petition well within time and that though he was a non-appealing party in the appeals, yet he was entitled to the same relief on the basis of principle of equality

Validity

Held, since the services of all such persons were dispensed with by, single order, as such, there was no distinction between their case and that of the appellants and was identical on all fours

When Tribunal or Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covered not only the case of civil servants who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who might have not taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the decision be extended to other civil servants, who might not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum

­Article 25 of the Constitution was also explicit on the point that all citizens were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection of law.

Definition.

Definition. A judgment determining the rights of persons inter se in or to any money or property in dispute, but not affecting the status of persons or things or determining any interest in property except between the parties. They include all judgment for money.