SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMP.C.C.S.E.U. Vs. B. YASHODABAI & ORS : Supreme Court – Article 141 of the Constitution of India

Supreme Court of India

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7130 OF 2002 Judgment Date: Dec 08, 2014

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7130  OF 2002

South Central Railway Employees
Co-Op. Credit Society Employees
Union                                                 ... Appellant

                                   Versus

B. Yashodabai and others                        ... Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1.    Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court of  Andhra
Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.1683 of 1998 on 14th  August,  2002,  this  appeal
has been preferred by the South  Central  Railway  Employees  Co-Op.  Credit
Society Employees' Union.
2.    It is necessary to know the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  the
present litigation, which has put the employees of  the  appellant-union  to
undue hardship and long-drawn litigation.

3.     The  South  Central   Railway   Employees   Co-Op.   Credit   Society
(hereinafter referred to as  'the  Society'),  had  framed  rules  governing
service conditions of its employees and the said rules had been approved  by
the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh,  Hyderabad.
This Court, in Civil Appeal No.4343 of 1988, had decided that there was  no
reservation policy for the  employees  of  the  Society  in  the  matter  of
promotion to higher cadre.  The said decision had been taken by  this  Court
for the reason that there was a dispute whether the  policy  of  reservation
was to be followed only at the stage of recruitment of the employees  or  it
was also to be followed in the matter of  giving  promotion  to  the  higher
cadre.  After considering  all  relevant  factors  and  relevant  rules  and
regulations, this Court had come to a specific conclusion that there was  no
provision with regard to giving benefit of reservation of any  kind  to  the
employees of the society in the matter of their promotion.  The  said  issue
had arisen initially for the reason that even in the  matter  of  promotion,
the policy with regard to reservation had been followed by the  society  and
some promotions were given on the basis of reservation policy and  the  said
policy was challenged by way of a writ petition in the High Court of  Andhra
Pradesh and ultimately in the said proceedings, this Court had finally  come
to a conclusion in Civil Appeal No.4343  of  1998  that  in  the  matter  of
promotion,  policy  of  reservation  was  not  to  be  followed  and  as   a
consequence thereof, the persons who had been wrongly promoted on the  basis
of reservation policy had to be reverted.

4.    In the aforestated circumstances, so as to correct the  mistake  which
had been committed by the  society  and  to  give  effect  to  the  judgment
delivered in the aforestated  appeal,  the  Society  had  issued  orders  of
reversion to the employees who had been wrongly promoted.   One  such  order
dated 12th June, 1998 was served upon the concerned employees, who had  been
wrongly promoted on the basis of their caste  and  creed.   The  said  order
dated 12th June, 1998  was  challenged  by  them  by  filing  Writ  Petition
No.17756 of 1998 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

5.    It is really very strange  that  the  writ  petition  challenging  the
aforestated order dated 12th June, 1998  was  allowed  and  the  aforestated
order was quashed and set aside by the High Court on 6th August, 1998.

6.    Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Single Judge of  the  High
Court, Writ Appeal No.1638 of 1998 had been filed by other employees of  the
society who had been aggrieved by  the  wrongful  promotions  given  by  the
Society on the basis of the reservation policy.  The said  Writ  Appeal  had
also been dismissed by the Division Bench of the  High  Court  by  an  order
dated 14th August, 2002.

7.    The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-employees who  are
aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Writ Appeal No.1638 of 1998.

8.    The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-employees' union  had
submitted before this Court that the High Court had committed a grave  error
by reconsidering the issue which had already been  decided  by  this  Court.
Once this Court had decided in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 that  the  employees  of
the Society were not entitled to promotion on the basis of  any  reservation
policy, the High Court could not have come to a different  conclusion,  when
the judgment delivered by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 was  sought  to
be implemented by issuance of an order dated 12th June, 1998  and  the  High
Court had committed a grave error by setting  aside  the  said  order  dated
12th June, 1998.

9.    The learned  counsel  had  further  submitted  that  once  this  Court
decides an issue by taking a particular decision, it  cannot  be  said  that
the judgment delivered by this Court is per incuriam or this Court  had  not
considered all relevant factors while delivering the said judgment.   So  as
to substantiate the aforestated submission, the learned counsel  had  relied
upon the judgments delivered by this Court in  Government  of  Goa  v.  A.H.
Jaffar and sons and another  2008(11) SCC 18 and Suganthi  Suresh  Kumar  v.
Jagdeeshan 2002(2) SCC 420.

10.   It had been finally submitted that the different  view  taken  by  the
High Court is absolutely improper and therefore, the appeal deserves  to  be
allowed.

11.   On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing  for  the  employees,
who had taken advantage of the reservation policy and had got  promotion  to
the higher cadre, submitted that the High Court had rightly  considered  all
relevant factors which  had  not  been  considered  by  the  Supreme  Court.
According to him, certain important and relevant factors  had  been  ignored
by this Court while  delivering  the  judgment  in  C.A.  No.4343  of  1988.
According to him, as the  High  Court  had  considered  all  other  relevant
factors, which this Court had not considered, the judgment delivered by  the
High Court was  just  and  proper  and,  therefore,  the  appeal  should  be
dismissed.

12.   We have heard the learned counsel at length and have  also  considered
the submissions made, the judgments relied upon by the counsel, the  earlier
judgment delivered by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988  and  the  impugned
judgment.  In our opinion, the High Court has committed  a  grave  error  by
taking a different view than the one which had been taken by this  Court  in
C.A. No.4343 of 1988, especially when  the  rules  governing  the  promotion
policy had not been amended after the aforestated judgment was delivered  by
this Court.

13.   It is pertinent to note that a review application had  been  filed  in
the aforestated C.A. No.4343 of 1988 and the  same  had  been  rejected  and
therefore, the judgment delivered by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988  had
become final.

14.   Once in pursuance of a judgment delivered by  this  Court  orders  had
been issued by the Society to its employees who had been  wrongly  promoted,
the High Court could not have held that the orders were  not  valid  because
there were certain other factors which had made the promotions given to  the
concerned employees valid.

15.   In our opinion, the High Court should not have  considered  any  other
factor especially when this Court had come to a final  conclusion  that  the
policy with regard  to  reservation  in  the  matter  of  promotion  to  the
employees was not legal and proper.

16.   We are of the view that it was not open to  the  High  Court  to  hold
that the judgment delivered by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of  1988  was  per
incuriam.

17.   If the view taken by the High Court  is  accepted,  in  our   opinion,
there would be total chaos in this country because in that case there  would
be no finality to any order passed by this Court.  When a higher  court  has
rendered a particular decision, the said decision  must  be  followed  by  a
subordinate or lower court unless it is distinguished or  overruled  or  set
aside.  The High Court had  considered  several  provisions  which,  in  its
opinion, had not been considered or  argued  before  this  Court  when  C.A.
No.4343 of 1988 was decided.  If the litigants or lawyers are  permitted  to
argue that something what was correct, but was  not  argued  earlier  before
the higher court and on that ground if the courts  below  are  permitted  to
take a different view in a matter, possibly the entire law  in  relation  to
the precedents and ratio decidendi will have to be re-written  and,  in  our
opinion, that cannot be done.  Moreover, by not following the law laid  down
by this Court, the High Court  or  the  Subordinate  Courts  would  also  be
violating the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

18.   We do not want to go  into  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  learned
counsel appearing for the respondents before the High Court for  the  simple
reason that it was not open to them to advance any argument which would  run
contrary to the judgment delivered by this Court in C.A.  No.4343  of  1988.
In our opinion, the High Court did something which  would  be  like  setting
aside a decree in the execution proceedings !

19.   For the reasons stated hereinabove,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the
learned Single Judge as well  as  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court
committed a serious error in law by not following the judgment delivered  by
this Court and by quashing and setting aside  the  order  dated  12th  June,
1998, which had been issued to the concerned employees so as to give  effect
to the Judgment dated 13th January, 1988 delivered by  this  Court  in  C.A.
No.4343 of 1988.

20.   The impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is set  aside.   The
appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

                                             ..............................J
                                                  (ANIL R. DAVE)

                                             ..............................J
                                                  (MADAN B. LOKUR)

                                             ..............................J
                                                  (KURIAN JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 8, 2014