Jus In Rem and Jus In Personam – Whose Right Is It Anyway? A Deeper Dive into the Application of Judicial Precedents to Similarly Situated Persons in India in the context of the Supreme Court Judgement in The Director (Admn&HR) vs C.P. Mundinaman

The Supreme Court’s decision in Director (Admn & HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani has reignited debate around the doctrines of jus in rem and jus in personam, particularly regarding whether judicial precedents should automatically extend benefits to similarly situated individuals. The case involved denial of an earned annual increment to employees who retired a day before the increment’s effective date, prompting widespread litigation. While the Supreme Court upheld employees’ entitlement, authorities have since treated the judgment as binding only on the litigants, sparking further disputes. This article analyses the historical and jurisprudential foundations of jus in rem and jus in personam, the doctrine of stare decisis, and their interplay in Indian service law. It argues that narrowly categorising judgments as jus in personam undermines constitutional principles of equality, fuels repetitive litigation, and burdens the judiciary. A principled, proactive extension of judgments with broader implications is essential for fairness and administrative efficiency.