Page 1

1

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.

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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.

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

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.

Page 7

7

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

Page 8

8

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

Page 9

9

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

Page 10

10

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